
Book_lLb___ 



nii 



d- 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE OF THE 
COMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

FOOD PRODUCTION ACT, 1919, H. R. 11945 



SEPTEMBER 16 AND 17, 1918 



I*riii(e(l for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 




'^ 



WASHINGTON 

r.OVERNMENT TRINTING OFFICE 

1918 






COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY. 
THOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma, Chairman. 



GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. 
ELLISON D. SMITH, South Carolina. 
HOKE SMITH, Georgia. 
MORRIS SHErPARD, Texas. 
JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM H. THOMPSON. Kansas. 
EDWIN S. JOHNSON, South Dakota. 
JOHN B. KENDRICK, Wyoming. 

H. M. Kay, OlerJt. 
2 



FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming. 

CARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. 

ASLE J. GRONNA. Noyth Dakota. 

GEORGE W. NORRIS, Nebraska. 

WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa. 

JAMES W. WADSWORTH. Jr., New York. 

JOSEPH I. FRANCE Maryland. 



0. 01 ... 
JAN 30 2920 






ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 



MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1919. 

United States Senate and Hotdse of Representatives, 

Committees of Conference of the 
Committees on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing Aotes of the two 
Houses on the amendments to the bill, IT. E. 11945, met in the 
committee room of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and 
Forestry at 10.30 o'clock a. m.. Senator Thom.as P. Gore presiding. 

Present of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestiy: 
Senators Gore (chairman). Smith of South Carolina, Smith of 
Georgia, Kenyon, and Wadsworth, 

Present of the House Committee on Agriculture : Representatives 
Lever (chairman), Lee, Candler, Haugen, and Anderson. 

There were present also other members of the Senate and House 
of Representatives. • 

The Chairman. The conference will come to order. Gentlemen, 
this meeting was agreed upon by Congressman Lever, chairman of 
the House committee, and myself. We arranged to have a hearing 
this morning on amendment 30 to the so-called food-production bill, 
which relates to the interstate shipnient of concentrated feeds and is 
■designed to prohibit the alleged adulteration of such feeds. 

There have been a number of requests to be heard in opposition to 
the amendment, and we have agreed to hear this morning those who 
are ojDposed to it, letting them state their reasons for their opposi- 
tion, and then we will possibly hear some on the other side of the 
question. I might say that Judge George W. Ward, of New York, 
is here, and I have requested him, as he has made a study of the 
npatter, to assist us somewhat in the conduct of the proceedings, 

Mr. Abbott, whom do you desire to have heard first ? 

Mr. Abbott. Do you wish. Senator, to hear the opponents first, 
or the proponents ? 

The Chairman. The opponents. The hearing was really called 
at their instance, Mr. Abbott ; otherwise there would not have been 
any hearing. 

I think first, Mr. Abbott, I will ask to have printed at this point 
a copy of the amendment, so it will appear in the record of the 
hearing just preceding your statement. 

(The amendment is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Sec. 26. That it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provided, for 
any person, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, offer for shipment, or trans- 
port in commerce among the several States or for commerce with foreign 
countries any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged 



4 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

feed, mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat hulls, cottonseed 
hulls, peanut hulls, peanut shells, rice hulls, oat hulls, corncobs (ground), 
cocoa shells, clipped oat by-product, ground or unground hulls, screenings, 
chaff, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, cleaning, or milling of 
any seed or grain when separated from the standard product as an offal or 
by-product, or such preparation, cleaning, or milling, humus, peat, spagnum 
moss, ivory-nut turnings, ground cornstalks, flax-plant refuse, sorghum pulp, 
ground or shredded straw or hay, sawdust, cellulose, or dirt, or any other for- 
eign material. 

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue a written permit for the 
shipn ent of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing a mixture of 
foreign material vv-hich. in his judgment, is inseparable from such prepared 
feeds or which does not detract materially from its feeding value: Provided, 
That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to show to pur- 
chasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient enter- 
ing into the composition of same ; or if such feed stuff's are shipped in bulk in 
carload lots, then the bill of lading and the bill from manufacturer to pur- 
chaser of same shall both show siich analysis. The agency distributing to 
users of such feeds in less-than-carload lots shall deliver to the purchaser of 
each lot, regardless of quantity sold, a bill showing cost and a correct analysis 
of such feeding stuffs. 

Any person or corporation who shall be convicted for violating the provisions 
of this section shall be liable to pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more 
than $5,000; or, in case of a natural person, to be imprisoned for a period 
not exceeding one year. In the discretion of the court, or by both such fine and 
imprisonment. 

The Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval of the Director General of 
Transportation, is authorized to prescribe suitable rules aud regulations for 
carrying into effect the provisions of this section. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HAROLD A. ABBOTT, PRESIDENT AMERICAN 
FEED MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, MANAGER OF FEED DE- 
PARTMENT OF THE ALBERT DICKINSON CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, be kind enough to state your name, 
your post-office address, your present business, and your connection 
with any organization that is interested in this proposition. 

Mr. Abbott. Harold A. Abbrtt, manager of the feed department 
of the Albert Dickinson Co., Chicago. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as we feed manu- 
facturers understand the spirit and intent of the Gore amendment, 
so called, it is in effect an attempt to prevent the interstate shipment 
of fraudulent feeds and does not purport to interfere with the inter- 
state shipment of feeding stuff of real intrinsic value. 

The Chairman. That is the idea. 

Mr. Abbott. This viewpoint we think, in general, was made rea- 
sonably clear on the floor of the Senate by Senator Gore, and with 
this viewpoint we feed manufacturers at the very outset wish to go 
on record as being heartily in accord. 

May we say in passing that there are now feeding-stuffs laws in 
42 of the several States, rather comprehensively covering the subject 
of feed regulation, and that we not only comply with these laws 
willingly but also gladly, inasmuch as they in general accomplish the 
very purpose which the Senator had in his mind m the introduction 
of his amendment, namely, the elimination of fraudulent feeds. As 
a matter of fact, the feed manufacturers cooperated with the asso- 
ciation of feed-control officials of the United States in securing the 
enactment of many of these State laws. 

But we respectfully point out that the language employed in the 
second paragraph of section 26 appeals to us as really frustrating 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 5 

the purpose of the amendment, whereas in reality, of course, it was 
intended to be the savior of the desirable feeds. We say this, of 
course, with all due deference and will proceed to discuss the second 
paragraph of section 26 as we have come to understand it. 

In the first place, section 26 makes it unlawful, " except as therein 
otherwise provided," to ship in commerce among the several States 
any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any one of a 
number of different ingredients therein mentioned specifically or any 
other foreign material. 

Now, the list of the named prohibited ingredients in section 26 is 
so long and so comprehensive that, as a matter of fact, almost every 
mixed feed made and shipped would be found to contain one or more 
of these prohibited ingredients in its admixture. This fact was so 
obvious that in the carrying out of the purpose of the bill to prevent 
an alleged evil the Senator who introduced the same naturally and 
necessarily added the second paragraph of section 26 to cover the 
point of permission to ship in interstate commerce the desirable 
mixed feeds. 

The second paragraph of section 26 authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture " to issue a written permit for the shipment of concen- 
trated commercial feeding stuffs containing a mixture of foreign 
materials which in his judgment is inseparable from such prepared 
feeds or which does not detract materially from its feeding value: 
Provided^ That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled 
as to show the purchasers and users thereof spec'ficallv the percent- 
age of each ingredient entering into the composition of the snme; or 
if such feedstuffs are shipped in bulk in carload lots, then the bill 
of lading and tlie bill from manufacturer to purchaser of same shall 
both show such analysis. The agency distributing to users of such 
feeds in less than carload lots shall deliver to the purchaser of each 
lot, regardless of quantity sold, a bill showing cost and a correct 
analysis of such -feeding stuffs." 

May we take up this paragraph in detail? 

The Chairmax. I would like to interject right there that I think 
that clause ought to be changed. It requires I he percentage to be 
stated, and it probably would not always be possible to state the exact 
percentage in a mixed feed of this character, so there ought to be a 
latitude, allowing a nuixinnnn, or a minimum and maximum within 
which the statement should be true. I realize that is too rigid the 
wav it is drawn, and there ought to be some flexibilitv provided. 

Mr. Abbott. It is primary, of course, that a mixed feed is a prod- 
uct made up of two or more separate and distinct ingredients, usually 
a number. 

Now, then, the Secretary of Agriculture may issue a permit to ship 
in interstate commerce any mixed feed which contains, among other 
things, any one of the ingredients prohibited by the first paragraph 
of section 26; provided, first, that in his judgment such prohibited 
material is inseparable from such prepared feed. But " inseparable " 
when? And how? Prior to the mixing of the feed, it is respect- 
fully pointed out, every ingredient which is intended to be used there- 
in is separable, of course, because it does not have to be mixed. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, will you let me explain? . I have an 
idea that there would, be some dust and perhaps some grit in these 
fed stuffs that could not possibly be separated, and I think where a 



6 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

man willfully puts dust or dirt in his feed it ought to be prohibited, 
but the way the manufacture and shipment of feed is carried on 
there will be more or less dust in it. Of course, it ought not to be 
interdicted because of that. That is what I had in mind. 

Mr. Abbott. I understand. Senator. 

After mixing, it is a well-knoAvn practical fact and a well-known 
scientific fact that no one of the ingredients is separable. Therefore, 
if the Secretary of Agriculture views the matter of separability or 
inseparability from the viewpoint of " before mixing" he will not be 
entitled to issue a single permit, and if he views the question of 
separability or inseparability from the standpoint of the finished 
product he may be obliged to issue a permit in every instance. This 
would seem to be, in this particular, at least, a defeating of the very 
purpose of the bill. Second, the Secretary of Agriculture may issue 
a permit for the interstate shipment of any mixed feed containing 
one or more of the prohibited ingredients, when in his judgment the 
presence of the prohibited ingredient or ingredients does not " de- 
tract materially from its feeding value." 

Now, the feeding value of a mixed feed is its feeding value as a 
completed product and, of course, that resultant is determined en- 
tirely by the very admixture itself; so that Ave urge this feature upon 
your careful consideration, for if the Secretary views the feeding 
Aalue of a given mixed feed as a completed whole, as it would seem 
necessary for him so to do. then rather of necessity he will be obliged 
to find that no ingredient therein detracts from its feeding value, 
and if he does not take this view, Ave do not knoAV what vieAv he 
can possibly take. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Abbott. I have here a reference to an 
analysis made by Dr. Kellogg, of the Pennsylvania Experiment Sta- 
tion, It is an actual instance, as I understand it. The farmer or- 
dered a carload of feed, containing 20 tons, and it turned out there 
Avere 3 tons of water in the carload. He paid $GQ for that water. 
That is one of the evils that this amendment is directed against. I 
do not think the AAater would have any feeding value; certainly it 
Avould not be Avorth $180 for the 3 tons. ^ 

Mr. Abbott. I quite agree with you there. 

The Chairmak. You see what I am getting at. We want all the 
help Ave can get to get at the evil and do not Avant to do anybody any 
harm that is in a legitimate business. I should be glad to have your 
assistance along that line, because Ave want to protect legitimate and 
honest business. 

Mr. Abi50tt. So that there again the licensing power will find itself 
in the position of denying license to all or granting license to all, 
Avhich, again, Ave respectfully submit is contrary to the whole purpose 
of the Gore amendment, as we understand the Senator himself to have 
explained it — that is, that Avorthless feeds are to go under the ban. 

Thirdly, in the event that the Secretary of Agriculture sees his 
way clear to grant a license to any mixed feed which contains a mix- 
ture of foreign material — that is to say, some one or more of the pro- 
hibited articles enumerated in the first paragraph of section 26 — the 
receiA^'er of that permission is obliged to see to it " that such feeding 
stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to show to purchasers and 
users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient entering 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 7 

into the composition of same, or if such stuffs are shipped in bulk in 
carload lots, then the bill of lading and the bill from the manufac- 
turer to the purchaser of same shall both show such analj^sis. The 
agency distributing to users of such feeds in less than carload lots 
shall deliver to the purchaser of each lot regardless of quantity sold 
a bill showing cost and a correct analysis of such feeding stuffs." 

This proviso we feed manufacturers feel can not be complied with 
as a practical matter in the first place, and, in the second place, that 
if it were necessary to attempt to comply with it, it would open the 
doors to possible dishonesty that might lead to greater evil than any 
which may now appear to be existent in the industry. 

It would compel the manufacturer to conform to two incompatible 
standards; one a chemical-composition guaranty required of him by 
the State laws; the other a percentage-ingredient guaranty required 
hj this Federal law. Under present manufacturing conditions he 
can not comply with both of these requirements. The raw materials 
from which he makes his feeds vary materially in chemical composi- 
tion. If, for example, the manufacturer is producing a feed guaran- 
teed to contain a specified percentage of protein and is obtaining the 
protein from cottonseed meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, alfalfa, corn, 
and oats, he will find that his cottonseed meal varies from 32 to 38 
per cent in protein, that his linseed meal varies from 31 to 36 per 
cent, the gluten feed from 20 to 27 per cent, and even the corn, oats, 
and alfalfa will show material variations in protein content from 
day to day and from shipment to shipment. In order to maintain his 
protein at approximately the guaranteed percentage, he must have all 
these ingredients analj^zed by a chemist and must vary their per cent 
in his mixture in accordance with the chemist's report. If he were 
required to guarantee the percentage of ingredients and maintain 
that guaranty continuously, the chemical composition of his feed 
would necessarily fluctuate with the fluctuations in the composition 
in ingredients, and the chemical-composition guaranty would become 
absolutely inoperative — a veritable dead letter. 

The second objection to this provision is that it is absolutely non- 
enforceable. Neither chemists nor microscopists, nor the two working 
conjointly, can determine with any degree of accuracy the percentage 
of ingredients in a mixed feed of ordinary composition; and when 
I say that I mean that they can not determine it closely enough to 
give such a law any force whatever. This provision will depend for 
its value entirely on the honesty and good will of the manufacturer 
and will, consequently, operate to place a premium on dishonesty 
and a penalty on honesty. 

We trust that" we have pointed out the objections to the second 
paragraph of section 26 in a clear and succinct manner, and if we 
have done so we think that it will appear rather conclusively that if 
the Gore amendment were to be passed as it now reads it would have 
the highly undesirable effect, especially in these times of stress, of 
preventing the interstate shipment of virtually all mixed feeds as 
they are now manufactured, and have been for a long time past. 
For again may we call your attention to the fact that practically 
ever3^one of them contains one or more of the ingredients prohibited 
in the first paragraph of section 26. 



8 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

For the above reasons, therefore, we seriously object to the Gore 
amendment, although we again reiterate that we have no contention 
whatsoever with those who desire that fraudulent feeds be prohibited 
from interstate shipment or even intrastate sale. 

We feed manufacturers are not opposed to Federal legislation for 
the control and regulation of our industry; but we feel from our 
knowledge of our own industry and from our experience with the 
practical operation of the laws of the several States, that such legis- 
lation should be comprehensive. We are happy to say that we stand 
ready and Avilling to give all the aid possible in the preparation of a 
Federal feeding-stuffs law whenever that aid may be desired by any 
Member or committee of the Congress of the United States. 

The Chairman. In order to set this matter clearly before the com- 
mittee and to get it in the record, I want to ask Mr. Abbott a few 
questions. I would like to say, first, that the enumeration of articles 
contained in this amendment is not just and ad captandum enumera- 
tion; it is based upon analyses of actual feedstuffs which were being 
sold to farmers, and these materials were found in the feedstuffs. 
This amendment was taken from a report based on these experiment 
station analyses. 

As I understand, Mr. Abbott, you do not contend, of course, that 
stuff like sawdust and other dust and dirt, ground corncobs, cocoa 
shells, and ivory-nut turnings, whatever they are, ought to be mixed 
with these concentrated feeds and sold to the farmers? 

Mr. Abbott. We quite agree with you, Senator, that such things 
as sawdust and dirt are very undesirable. 

The Chairman. I am glad to hear you say that, and I knew you 
would. But your objections go to this entire amendment; you are 
opposed to the prohibition of interstate shipment of fraudulent feeds. 
You allege that this amendment is unworkable and impracticable, 
although in large measure you seem to favor the end sought. 

I will ask you at this point to prepare amendments to this pro- 
posed amendment that will cut out the fraud and will not interfere 
with legitimate business. You say this amendment is not workable, 
and jet that the end is desirable. I have no pride in this matter at 
all, and shall be glad to have any suggestions from you or your or- 
ganization, or from any other quarter, that will meet this s.tuation 
and avoid the evils that you suggest. 

You are president of what association? 

Mr. Abbott. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association. 

The Chairman. How old an organization is that? 

Mr. Abbott. Ten years old. 

The Chairman. How many members has it? 

Mr. Abbott. Approximately 175. 

The Chairman. Did you send out a number of telegrams, Mr. 
Abbott, to have telegrams sent in concerning this amendment? 

Mr. Abbott. We requested our membership to get in touch with 
the proper parties, so that we might be heard before the conference 
committee before the matter proceeded any further. Unfortunately, 
we had not had the opportunity of appearing previously. 

The Chairman. Will you be kind enough to attach to your state- 
ment a sample copy of your telegram to these organizations? 

Mr. Abbott. I will, sir. I have not the telegram with me, but the 
secretary of our organization undoubtedly can furnish it to you. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 9 

(The telegram referred to was subsequently furnished and is here 
printed in full, as follows:) 

Gore amendment to House bill 11949 makes it unlawful to ship or transport 
in interstate commerce any concentrated commercial iVeJing stuffs containing 
mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat, cottonseed, oats, or other 
hulls, clippings, screenings, chal'f, or offal from any seed or grain when sepa- 
rated from standard product or from cleaning or milling, peat, flax, straw, hay, 
etc., passed Senate committee yesterday, likely pass S }nate to-day, and House 
Saturday morning. This infamous measure will practlcnlly prohibit the ship- 
ment ' of' every commercial mixed feed. Wire your Senators and Congressmen 
immediately to stop this bill. 

The Chairman. Who is the secretary of your organization, Mr. 
Abbott ? 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. L. F. Brown, with headquarters at Milwaukee. 

The Chairman. How long has he been with you ? 

Mr. Abbott. About five years, I think, if my memory serves me. 

The Chairman. Have his services been satisfactory? 

Mr. Abbott. Very. 

The Chairman. What was his official position before he became 
secretaiT of this Feed Manufacturers Association? 

Mr. Abbott. I can not attempt at this time to give you his exact 
status. My understanding was that he was working with the De- 
partment of Agriculture in the State of New York. 

The Chairman. And had to do with the law prohibiting adulter- 
ated foods? 

Mr. Abbott. Personally I am not in a position to enlighten you 
as to his definite duties at that time. 

Representative Lever. You mean the State Department of Agri- 
culture of New York? 

Mr. Abbott. The State Department of Aginculture of New York. 

The Chairjian. You are not aware then that Mr. Brown, prior 
to his connection with your organization, was connected with the 
New York Department of Agriculture and had charge of the speci- 
mens that were to be analyzed for the detection of fraudulent 
mixtures? 

Mr. Abbott. Speaking from a definite standpoint, I can not say 
that I do know exactly. I have, of course, come in contact with 
him. I have had occasion to come in contact with him in the de- 
partment of agriculture at Albany, but, as I stated a minute ago, 
just what authority he had in that department I am not prepared 
to say. 

The Chairman. If I do not find it soon I will put in the record 
later at this place the official status of Mr. Brown in the New York 
Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. Abbott. Speaking further on your suggestion of amending 
your present proposed regulations, we as feed manufacturers would 
like at this time to recommend to your committee a proposed uni- 
form feed law which in 1913 was indorsed by the Department of 
Agriculture of the United States, by the feed-control officials of 
the various States, by delegates from the Millers' National Federa- 
tion, the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association, and the Amer- 
ican Feed Manufacturers' Association. 

The Chairman. Will you attach a copy of that bill to your state- 
ment? 



10 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Abbott. I will, sir. 

(The bill referred to was subsequently furnished, and is here 
printed in full, as follows:) 

PROPOSED FEDERAL FEED LAW. 

The proposed new Federal feedstuffs act is tbe work of five delegates ap- 
pointed from four associations interested in this subject and which are as 
follows: Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States, Millers' 
National Federation, Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association, and the 
American Feed Manufacturers' Association. This proposed new bill was given 
the unanimous indorsement of the five men attending the conference at Chi- 
cago on May 22. These men were Dr. C. D. Woods, director of the agricul- 
tural experiment station. State of Maine, and who is nlso chairmnn of the 
executive committee of the Association of Feed Control Oflicials of the United 
States; J. D. Turner, head of the feed division, agriculture experiment sta- 
tion. State of Kentucky, and president of the Association of Feed Control 
Officals of the United States; W. G. Crocker, Washburn-Crosby Co., Minne- 
apolis. Minn., chairman of the legislative and uniform feed law connnlttee 
of the Millers' National Federation; Julien E. Erode, Memphis, Tenn., repre- 
senting the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association ; G. A. Chaj)man, 
Quaker Oats Co., Chicago. 111., president of the American Feed Manufacturers' 
Association. The proposed new law was unanimously indorsed by the Amer- 
ican Feed Manufacturers' Association at its meeting in Chicago, May 23 and 
24, and as the members of the executive committee of the Association of Feed 
Control Officials of the United States, the appointed delegates from the Millers' 
National Federation, and Mr. Erode, representing the Interstate Cottonseed 
Crushers' A.ssociation, gave unanimous indorsement to the bill there is little 
doubt but what it will have the most careful attention of the Interstate Com- 
merce Connnittee of the United States Senate. 

• 
AN ACT For preventing the manufactui-e, sale, or transportation of adulterated or mls- 
' branded or poisonous or deleterious commercial feeding stuffs, and for regulating traffic 

therein, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled : 

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture within any 
♦Territory or the District of Columbia any commercial feeding stuffs which is 
adulterated or nnsbranded within the meaning of this act ; and any person 
who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, l)e fined not to exceed .$.500 
for the first offense, and upon conviction for each subsequent offense be fined 
not to exceed .$1,000, or sentenced to imprisonment for not to exceed one year, 
or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. 

Sec. 2. That the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of 
Columbia from any other State or Territorv or the I")istrict of Columbia, or 
from any foreign country, or shipment to ariy foreign country, of any com- 
mercial feedin'jc stuffs whir-h is adulterated or mjsbranded withiii the meaning 
of this act is hereby prohibited: and any person who shall ship or deliver for 
shipment froiu any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any 
other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or to any foreign country, 
or who shall receive in any State or Territory or the Distict of Colmnbia 
from any other State or Tei-ritory or the District of Columbia, or foreign coun- 
try, and having so received shall deliver, in original unbroken packages, for 
pay or otherwise, or offer to deliver, to any other person, any such article 
so adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, or any person 
who shall sell or offer for sale in the District of Columbia or any Territory of 
the United States any such adulterated or misbranded commercial feeding 
stuffs, or export or offer to export the same to any foreign country, shall be 
guilty of a misdemeanor, and for such offense be fined not exceeding .$200 for 
the first offense, and, upon conviction for each subsequent offense not exceeding 
$300, or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of 
the court: Provided, That no article shall be deemed misbranded or adulterated 
within the provisions of this act when intended for export to any foreign coun- 
try and prepared or packed according to the specifications or directions of the 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 11 

foreign purchaser, when no substance is used in the preparation or packing 
thereof in conflict with the laws of tlie foreign country to which said article 
is intended to be shipped ; but if said articles shall be in fact sold or offered 
for sale for domestic use or consumption, ihtn this proviso shall not exempt 
said article from the operation of any of the other provisins of this act. 

Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall make uniform rules and regulations 
for carrying out the provisions of this act. including the collection and exami- 
nation of specimens of commercial feeding stuffs manufactured or offered for 
sale in the District of Columbia or in any Territory of the United States, or 
which shall be offered for sale in unbroken packages in any State other than 
that in which they shall have been respectively manufactured or produced, or 
which shall be received from any foreign country or intended for shi]nnent 
to any foreign country, or which may be submitted for examination by the 
chief feed control ofiicial of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, 
or by the director of the experiment station of any State, Territory, or the 
District of Columbia, or at any domestic or foreign port through which such 
product is offered for interstate connuerce, or for export or. import between 
the United States and any foreign port or country. 

Sec. 4. That the e:^amination of specimens of commercial feeding stuffs shall 
be made in the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, or 
under the direction and supervision of such bureau, for the purpose of deter- 
mining from such examination whether such articles are adulterated or mis- 
branded within the meaning of this act; and if it shall appear from any such 
examination that any of such specimens are adulterated or misbranded within 
the meaning of this act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause notice thereof 
to be given to the party from whom such sample was obtained. Any party so 
notified shall be given an opportunity to be heard, under such rules and regula- 
tions as may be prescribed as aforesaid, and if it appears that any of the 
provisions of this act have been violated by such party, then the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall at once certify the facts to the proper United States district 
attorney, with a copy of the resuls of the analysis or the examination of such 
article, duly authenticated by the analyst or officer making such examination, 
under the oath of such officer. After judgment of the court, notice shall be 
given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules and 
regulations aforesaid. 

Sec. 5. That it shall be the duty of each disti-ict attorney to whom the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture shall report any violation of this act. or to whOi'n any 
director of experiment station or chief feed-control official of any State, Terri- 
tory, or. the District of Columbia shall pref^cnt satisfactory evidences of any 
such violation, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prose- 
cuted in the proper courts of the United States, wiflmut delay, for the euforce- 
ment of the penalties as in such cases herein provided. 

Sec. 6. That the term " commercial feeding stuffs " as used in this act shall 
include all feeding stuffs used for feeding live stock and jioultry. 

Sec. 7. That for the inirposes of this act a commercial feeding stuffs shall be 
deemed to be adulterated : 

First. If its strength, comnosition, or purity falls below the professed stand- 
ard or quality under which it is sold. 

Second. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce 
or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strenirth. 

Third. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article. 

Fourth. If it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in a manner 
whereby damage or inferiority is concealed. 

Fifth. If it contains any substance or substances which may be injurious to 
the health of live stock or poultry. 

Sixth. If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, mouldy, or 
putrid animal or vegetable substance. 

Sec. 8. That for the purposes of this act a commercial feeding stuff shall be 
deemed to be misbranded : 

First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the name of another 
article. 

Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser. 

Third. If the package containing it or its label or any advertising matter 
accompanying the package or any advertising matter intended to be used in 
connection with the sale of the article shall bear any statement, design, or de- 
vice regarding the article or the ingredients or substances contained therein, or 



12 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

regarding the physiological or therapeutic action of such article or ingredients 
or substances contained therein, which statement, design, or device sliall be false 
or misleading in any particular. 

Fourth. If every lot or package of commercial feeding stuffs does not have 
affixed in a conspicuous place on the outside thereof a plainly printed statement 
in the English language clearly and truly giving the number of net pounds in 
the package ; the name, brand, or trade-mark under which the article is sold ; 
the name and principal address of the manufacturer or person responsible for 
placing the feeding stuffs on the market : a chemical analysis stating the maxi- 
mum percentage of crude liber, the minimum percentage of crude fat, and the 
minimum percentage of crude protein (allowing one per cent of nitrogen to 
equal six and one-fourth per cent of protein) which it contains, all three con- 
stituents to be determined by the methods adopted at tlae time by the associa- 
tion of official agricultural chemists of North America ; if the feeding stuffs is a 
compound feed, the name of each ingredient contained therein; and if artifi- 
cially colored, the name of the material used for that purpose: Providcil, hotc- 
ever, that the provisions of the foregoing paragraph of the law designated 
section eight, fourth paragraph, do not apply to the whole seeds or grains sold 
as such and the unmixed meals made directly from the entire grains of corn, 
wheat, rye, barley, oats, buckwheat, flaxseed, kafir and milo, whole hay, whole 
straws, cottonseed hulls, and corn stover when unmixed with other mnterials. 

Sec. 9. That no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act 
when he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufac- 
turer, or other party residing in the United States, from whom he i)\irchased 
such article, to the effect tliat the same is not adulterated or misbranded within 
the meaning of this act, designating it. Said guaranty, to afford iiroteetion, 
shall contain the name and address of the party or parties making the sale of 
such articles to such dealer, and in such case said party or parties shall be 
amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and other penalties which would attach in 
due course to the dealer under the provisions of this act. 

Sec. 10. That any commercial feeding stuffs that is adulterated or misbranded 
within the meaning of this act and is being transported from one State, Terri- 
tory, district, or insular pos.session to another for sale, or, having been trans- 
ported, remains unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages, or if it be 
sold or offered for sale in the District of Columbia or any Territory of the 
United States, or any insular possession of the United States, or if it be 
imported from a foreign country for sale, or if it is intended for export to a 
foreign country, shall be liable to be proceeded against in any district court 
of the United States within the district wherein the same is found and seized 
for confiscation by a process of libel for condemnation. And if such article is 
condemned as being adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act. 
the same shall be dispo.sed of by destruction or .sale as the said court may direct, 
and the proceeds thereof, if sold, less the legal costs and charges, shall be paid 
into the Treasury of the United States, but such goods shall not be sold in any 
.iurisdiction contrary to the provisions of this act or the laws of that .iurisdic- 
t\on -.Provided, horvevcr, That upon the payment of the costs of .such libel pro- 
ceedings and the execution and delivery of a good and sufficient bond to the 
effect that such articles shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to 
the provisions of this act or the laws of any State, Territory, or district" the 
court may by order direct that such articles be delivered to the owner thereof. 
The ]>roceedings of such libel cases shall conform, as near as may be. to the 
proceedings iu admiralty, except their either party may demand trial by jury 
of any issue of fact .joined in any such case, and all such proceedings shall be 
at the .suit of and in the name of the United States. 

Sec. 11. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of 
Agriculture, upon his request, from time to time, samples of commercial feeding 
stuffs which are being imported into the United States or offered for import, 
giving notice thereof to the owner or consignee, who ma.v appear before the 
Secretary of Agriculture and have the right to introduce "testimony ; and if it 
appear from the exiunination of such samples that any commercial feeding 
stuffs offered to be imported into the United States is adultered or misbranded 
within the meaning of this act, or is otherwise dangerous to the health of the 
live stock or poultry of the United States, or is of a kind forbidden entry into 
or forbidden to be sold or restricted in sale in the country in which it is made 
or from which it, is exported, or is otherwise falsely labeled in any respect, the 
said article shall be refused admission, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
refuse delivery to the consignee and shall cause the destruction of any 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 13 

goods refused delivery which shall not be exported by the consignee within 
three months from the date of notice of such refusal under such regu- 
lations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe : Provided, That 
the Secretary of the Treasury may deliver to the consignee such goods 
pending examination and decision in the matter on execution of a penal bond 
for the amount of the full invoice value of such goods, together with the duty 
thereon, and on refusal to return such goods for any cause, to the custody of 
the Secretary of the Treasury, when demanded, for the purpose of excluding 
them from tiie country, or for any other purposes, said consignee shall forfeit 
the full amount of the bond : And provided further. That all charges for storage, 
cartage, and labor on goods which are refused admission or delivery shall be 
paid by the owner or consignee, and in default of such payment shall constitute 
a' lien against any future importation made by such owner or consignee. 

Sec. i2. That the term " Territory," as used in this act shall include the 
District of Alaska and the insular possessions of the United States. The word 
" person " as used in this act, shall be construed to import both the plural and 
the singular, as the case demands, and shall include corporations, companies, 
societies, and associations. When construing and enforcing the provisicms of 
this act, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person act- 
ing for or employed by any corporation, company, society, or association, within 
the scope of this employment or oflice, shall in every rase be also deemed to 
be the act, omission, or failure of such corporation, company, society, or associa- 
tion, as well as that of the other person. 

Sec. 13. That this act shall be in force and effect from and after the 
day of 

The Chairman. Do you happen to remember what officials of the 
Department of Agriculture had to do with the preparation of this 
bill or its indorsement? 

Mr. Abbott. I can not tell you. I was not as intimately associ- 
ated with our association at that time as I am to-day. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Abbott, what Federal regu- 
lation is there now in reference to protecting the public against the 
adulteration of feed stuffs, such as is contemplated in this amend- 
ment? 

Mr. Abbott. The present Federal pure-food law of 1906, I under- 
stand, very amply covers that point of adulteration, of misbranding, 
of allowing any putrid foodstuffs or matter of that kind to enter 
into feeds in interstate commerce. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Is there any provision in the 
existing law that would protect the consumer or the purchaser from 
the adulteration contemplated in this proposed amendment? In 
other words, could a manufacturer of concentrated feed adulterate it 
with foreign matters enumerated in the Gore amendment and not be 
liable under the law? 

Mr. Abbott. Understand, Senator, some of the foreign matter 
that you speak of in the Gore amendment we can not acknowledge 
to be foreign matter, or at least undesirable feed stuffs. In fact, it 
would rather appear to us from the Senator's own statement that it 
was not his intention that they should all be barred. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Well, as far as concerns any- 
thing in this enumeration that should be barred, is there any law 
that would penalize one for the use of them? 

Mr. Abbott. If a representative of the Bureau of Chemistry were 
present, he no doubt could give you quite a comprehensive answer to 
your question. I think that the law does cover the question of will- 
ful adulteration with such things as are harmful or deleterious. 
That is specifically mentioned in the pure-food law, as it refers to 
food both for human beings as well as for animals. 



14 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I am not familiar Avith the 
law, and I am trying to get at whether or not there is any law that 
would protect the purchaser of concentrated foods from harmful 
adulteration, which is sought to be done by the Gore amendment. 

Mr. Abbott. In addition to the restrictions of the Federal pure- 
food act, as stated in our brief, there are 42 States that have some 
regulations covering the matter. 

Representative Lever. Answering Senator Smith's question, let us 
see if this, in Mr. Abbott's judgment, covers the matter he has in 
mind. Section 6 of the pure food and drugs act defines drugs, and 
then defines food in this language [reading] : 

The term food as used herein shall include all articles used for food, drink, 
confectionery, or condiment by men or other animals, whether simple, mixed, 
or compound. 

Mr. Abbott. It does cover all deleterious substances. 

Representative Lever. Does it cover the proposition of sawdust, 
for instance? Is that deleterious? 

Mr. Abbott. In my judgment, I should consider that it is, when 
mixed. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. There is not any doubt about it. Cer- 
tainly sawdust is not a good food for animals. 

Mr. Abbott. Unless you can obtain testimony which will prove my 
statements wrong. In my judgment it is not a good food. Of 
course, animals are known to nibble trees and their stalls and things 
of that kind, but I am not in favor of sawdust. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. But it does not help them to nibble on 
their stalls, does it? 

Mr. Abbott. Understand, Senator, I am not trying to uphold any 
such item as that. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. I have not any patience with any 
doubt about its being objectionable. 

Representative Lever. I think there is some doubt about it. Water 
is not deleterious to animals, is it ? 

Mr. Abbott. No. sir. 

Representative Lever. Senator Gore brings to the attention of the 
committee here a proposition — what was that statement ? 

The Chairman. A farmer bought a carload of 20 tons of mixed 
feeds, and the analysis made by Dr. Kellogg, of the Pennsylvania 
Experiment Station, developed that there were 3 tons of water in 
those 20 tons of alleged feeds. Now, I do not think that water is 
either harmful or deleterious. 

Representative Lever. Mr. Abbott, is there anything in the Fed- 
eral law anywhere that could cover a case of that kind? 

Mr. Abbott. In the first place, Congressman Lever, all feedstuffs 
of a desirable character and in a condition to be properly trans- 
ported and used as articles of feed must necessarily have a certain 
moisture content. 

Representative Lever. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Abbott. That moisture content runs from 11 to 15 or IG per 
cent in what you would ordinarily term a dry and desirable feed- 
stutf. In the matter of corn, unfortunately, this last year the Lord 
did not see to it that our corn crop was cured as well as it might 
have been, and there was transported in interstate commerce many 
millions of bushels of corn which contained vast amounts of water. 



ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 15 

That was discounted, hoAvever, and the price of corn undoubtedly 
was fixed to comply with that condition. 

Eepresentative Lever. Mr. Haugen, there is a Federal statute 
which fixes the moisture content of butter, is there not? 

Eepresentative Haugen. Yes. sir. 

Representative Lever. But there is no Federal law which would 
fix the moisture content of mixed feeds? Is there any that you 
know of? 

Mr. Abbott. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. What have you to say as to your State laws 
on that proposition, our State laws which fix the maximum moisture 
content of mixed feeds ? 

Mr. Abbott. The I'equirements of the acts I do not know, but 
there can not safely be more than a certain moisture content in any 
feedstuff without its deteriorating and getting out of condition in 
very short order. 

Representative Lever. Is there a commercial standard fixing the 
moisture content? 

Mr. Abbott. Through the judgment that all mixed-feed manufac- 
turers have formed as a result of their experience. 

Representative Lever. Take the illustration that Senator Gore 
gave us here. Would that be possible as a general custom in the 
trade ? 

Mr. Abbott. I think not. Furthermore, if this carload of feed 
that the Senator speaks of contained 40,000 pounds of feed stuffs 
and had 10 per cent of natural moisture content, that would be 
4,000 pounds. If it had 15 per cent natural moisture content, which 
would be desirable in the feed business, that would be 6,000 pounds, 
or three tons of water. Fifteen per cent moisture content is not out 
of the way, although many mixed feeds run materially under that. 
Our wheat crop invariably will average early in the season as much 
as 15 per cent moisture content. 

Representative Lever. Do you happen to know what the Govern- 
ment standard for corn allows in the way of moisture content? 

Mr. Abbott. I have a copy of the Government regulation with ref- 
erence to shelled corn. It provides that a bushel of No. 2 corn must 
not contain more than 15| per cent of moisture. No. 1 and No. 2 
corn are recognized by the trade and are so graded as the highest 
type of corn obtainable. Other grades of corn, such as No. 3, 
must not contain more than 17^ per cent of moisture. Bear in 
mind, of course, that other features of the inspection regulations 
provide it shall not contain over a certain given percentage of 
cracked material or damaged grains. 

Representative Lever. What is the moisture content for wheat in 
the Government standards ? Do you happen to recall ? 

Mr. Abbott. The moisture content of wheat varies according to its 
class. For hard red spring and durum wheat, grading No. 1, it 
is not over 14 per cent moisture ; grading No. 2, not over 14.5 ; grad- 
ing No. 3, not over 15; grading No. 4, not over 16; grading No. 5, 
not over 16.5 per cent of moisture. 

Representative Lever. What about northern No. 1 ? 

Mr. Abbott. Northern No. 1 would be included in the hard spring 
variety. . 



16 • ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Ward. May I ask, at what time is that percentage of moisture 
allowed ? Is it in the grain, or is it allowed in the flour ? 

Mr. Abbott. These are the inspection regulations of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture as they refer to the grading of grain in the 
terminal markets. 

Representative Lever. What is the ordinary moisture content of 
cottonseed meal? 

Mr. Abbott. I will have that looked up, and while that is being 
done I want to add, for the information of the committee, that in 
speaking of the moisture content of wheat and corn, I refer to what 
is known as the natural moisture content. There has been no moisture 
added; that is not permissable. It is merely as it is found in its 
original state. 

Representative Haugen. May I ask the Chairman a question? Is 
it the contention that the three tons of moisture was added, or did 
that represent the ordinary moisture content? 

The Chairman. I could not say as to that. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What was the character of the ma- 
terial? 

The Chairman. It just said " mixed feed," Senator. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. What percentage of water was there 
in it in the case you refer to? 

Mr. Ward. I have that statement here, and I will give it to you. 
Of the 600 or more samples received and analyzed, 50 were molasses 
feeds, which were found to contain water in quantities of 13 per cent 
or more, to as high as 20.24 per cent. An average of the samples gave 
15.16 per cent of water. In one carload, or 20 tons of this class of 
feeds, the water shipped to consumers amounted to about 3 tons, and 
3 tons of water at the rate of $20 to $25 per ton is an item of expense 
which should be seriously considered in these times of high-priced 
feeds. 

If I may be permitted the suggestion, the important inquiry ife. 
What would the percentage of water be in corn meals or wheat brans 
shipped as these were; not the percentage of water in green grains 
before they were milled? 

Senator Smith of Georgia. To determine whether the water was 
intentionally added? 

Mr. Ward. Yes. 

Representative Lever. What is the moisture content of corn meal? 

Mr. Abbott. The moisture content of Southern natural ground 
corn meal, made directly from the whole kernel of corn, would be, of 
course, the moisture content of the corn from which it was made, and 
that would vary according to the grade of corn used. As indicated 
by the regulations, it might be 15.5 per cent, or possibly a trifle more, 
although I do not believe, as a matter of commercial practice, that 
even natural ground corn meal is shipped in interstate commerce 
when it contains more than 15.5 per cent of moisture, because it is 
not a safe proposition; it gets out of condition. I understand, fur- 
thermore, that there is a Government regulation, through the Food 
Administration, which prohibits the movement in interstate com- 
merce of corn meal of more than 14.5 per cent moisture content. 

Representative Lever. Do you happen to know the moisture con- 
tent of flour ? 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 17 

Mr. Abbott. I can not speak as to flour, unless some one enlightens 
me. 

Going back to cottonseed meal, to answer your first question, re- 
ports indicate that cottonseed meal contains from 7.5 to 11 per cent 
of moisture. I wish further to state that the standard mixed feeds 
offered and sold in the markets to-day, of what is known as a dry 
character, will average from 10 to 12 per cent of moisture. Of course, 
where those feeds are blended with molasses, which naturally in itself 
must contain a larger percentage of moisture, the feed will be some- 
what increased in moisture content. 

All experience has shown that no feed carrying an excess of mois- 
ture is safe for transportation in interstate commerce. It means so 
great a loss to the manufacturer and shipper that they would not, for 
one moment dare, nor does he dare, to place that in interstate ship- 
ments. 

The Chairman. Then you would like to see that stopped? You 
would like to have stopped the interstate shipment of feeds contain- 
ing an excessive quantity of water? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes. sir. As far as I know, it is not being done; it 
is not a common ])ra< tice. We do not know of any instances our- 
selves. We do not indulge in it and I have not had it brought to 
my attention. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, you state that, according to the au- 
thority you have there. No. 1 northern wheat contains 14 per cent of 
moisture, according to the Government standard grades? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So that when the miller buys No. 1 northern 
wheat he knows exactly how much water he is buying and how 
much water he is paying for, does he not ? 

Mr. Abbott. As a rule they have tests made. 

The Chairman. I am not speaking of that ; I mean he knows how 
much he is paying for? 

Mr. Abbott. He knows the limit of moisture. 

The Chairman. He knows the limit of moisture, because Con- 
gress and the Government had thought it of sufficient importance 
to .protect the millers against excess water or misgrading of wheat. 
Now, whenever a miller or farmer buys No. 1 corn he knows how 
much water he is getting; he knows the percentage, according to the 
standard of the United States prescribed in pursuance of law. Do 
you thing that is a wise provision? 

Mr. Abbott. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there any reason why the farmer should not 
have the same protection in regard to mixed feeds? 

Mr. Abbott. No, sir; provicled it is arrived at by a reasonable 
limitation which is workable. 

Representative Lever. Do buckwheat hulls have any feeding value, 
Mr. Abbott? 

Mr. Abbott. I would prefer to have that question answered by 
some one that is perhaps more familiar with it. I would like to call 
on Mr. Chapin, if it is agreeable to you. 

Representative Lever. In a general way, what is the reason for 
using buckwheat hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, nut shells, 

81413—18 2 



18 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

rice hulls, oat hulls, corn cobs ground, cocoa shells, etc., when mix- 
ins: feeds? We all know that practice is carried on. 

Mr. Abbott. I would like the privilege of referring all those ques- 
tions to Mr. Chapin, if you please. 

Representative Lever. That is satisfactory to me. 

The Chairman. I would like to interject into the record at this 
point the statement that I think in all probability, the United States 
pure food law does proliibit the interstate shipment of harmful or 
deleterious feeds. Whether it would apply to worthless feeds or not 
I am not so certain, and this has more particular reference to worth- 
less feeds — stuff that is covered up with blackstrap molasses and 
palmed off on the farmer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK B. KELLOGG, A UNITED STATES 
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 

Senator Kellogg. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one word to 
the committee, if I may do so. I have received protests from cham- 
bers of commerce, country elevators, and terminal elevators in my 
State, with the request that I present them to the committee, which 
I will do if the committee desires. 

The Chairman. We shall be glad to have you file them with the 
committee. 

Senator Kellogg. I was also requested to make a statement to 
this effect. Of course, I am familiar Avith this personally. You all 
know that in my State the farmers do not clean their grain; they 
have no facilities for doing it now. In the old days they used to 
clean it with the fanning mill. Now it is cleaned in the country or 
terminal elevators — very largely in the terminal elevators because 
the country elevators have not the machinery. The screenings are 
taken out and sold, of course, for feed. As I understand this bill, 
it would prohibit anybodj^ selling concentrated feed containing 
screenings without a permit from the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Screenings are a very large product in my State, and the revenue 
from them pays the farmer a great deal. 

The Ciiairjian. Yes: there is a great deal of force in that, Sen- 
ator, and it ought to be taken care of. 

Senator Kellogg. It ought to be taken care of. 

I do not wish to take the time of the committee arguing a fact 
with which I presume this committee is entirely familiar, but I will 
say that Mr. Jenks, president of the Chamber of Commerce of 
Duluth, is here. He is familiar with the subject, and if the com- 
mittee will hear him at a proper time I shall be glad. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. REED, A UNITED STATES SENATOR 
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI. 

Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, may I interject here — because I have 
another committee to go to — something along the line suggested by 
Senator Kellogg? I have protests from very responsible people in 
my State who say that this bill, if it is enacted in its present form, 
will result in the destruction or nonuse of a vast quantity of ma- 
terial that now makes good feed. They say further that this is a 
poor time to be refusing to use for animal food materials which in 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 19 

some other countries tliej^ are very glad to use for human food to- 
day, and that it is a poor time to be restricting the use of flesh- 
producing and Jife-preserving foods for animals when we are re- 
quiring, even in America, people to use for foods articles that they 
have not hitherto desired to use. 

I do not know who drew this bill, but I think whoever did draw 
it never saw a fanning mill, never thrashed any wheat, and probably 
never worked in an elevator, or he would not have put into the bill 
a provision against screenings. 

Now, I happen to have groAvn up on a farm, and I have turned an 
old-fashioned fanning mill many times. When we got our wheat 
from the separator, in the old days before they w-ere quite as good 
as they are now, the wheat had mixed Avith it certain seeds of certain 
weeds that were heavy enough so that they were not carried out by 
the draft of the fan in the separator, and they fell in with the wheat. 
Also there fell in with the wheat the lighter particles of grain, 
broken grain, grain that had been blighted, and various other ma- 
terials, including almost invariably some oats and perhaps some rye 
and some barley that had become mixed with the wheat. 

All those things, even including the weed seeds that I referred to, 
had a feed value. We ran the wheat through the fanning mill in 
order to separate the good sound wheat from these other articles, and 
then when our wheat was taken to the mill we got flour of a better 
quality than we would have gotten if we had ground everything up 
together. But these screenings had a very high value. They were, 
in fact, so rich that we could not feed them to our horses, Jbecause 
everybody knows you can not feed a horse much wheat without dan- 
ger to the horse. They were most excellent feed for cattle, in small 
quantities, for hogs, and for chickens; and, I think, with modern 
milling, perhaps some of them are saved and put into flour at the 
present time. So when you propose to condemn screenings you 
simply propose by law to force a waste of good food substances. 

You have in the amendment the phrase " damaged feed." What 
do you mean by " damaged feed " ? I undertake to say that if you 
are going to throw out all feed that is damaged to any extent you 
will throw out about half the feed there is in the country. Mr. 
Chairman, I suppose it is ]:)erfectly safe to say that on the average 
33 per cent of the timothy hay ancl clover in this country is more oi 
less damaged when it is being put up. A farmer goes out and cuts 
10 or 20 acres, and there comes along a rain, and the minute it is 
rained on it is damaged. He is obliged sometimes to throw it up in 
the shock before it is just in prime condition, and it gets somewhat 
damaged. Sometimes he puts it in the stack a little bit damp, and 
it is somewhat damaged. I do not believe you can find 10 per cent 
of the timothy hay and clover in this country that comes out in the 
spring of the year that is not to some extent damaged. 

The same thing can be said of possibly all our grains, our feeds. 
Very little of them comes through in absolutely prime condition. 
Grains may be very greatly damaged. They may he damaged so that 
their food value is reduced 50 per cent, but still there is 50 per cent 
of food value left. You can take wheat that has been so musted and 
spoiled in the bin that it is absolutely unfit for food, and yet it will 
be perfectl}^ good for hogs and have a tremendous food value. 



20 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

These are just practical questions that men who have fed hogs and 
cattle and sheep and chickens and that have raised grain know. I 
happen to know them, and I think, after a reading of this bill, that 
it needs some very careful revamping. In fact, I think it has been 
drawn in reference to grains about as I might draw a bill with ref- 
erence to cotton. Being wholly ignorant of cotton, I would be very 
likely to mix up the cotton situation. I am inclined to think a 
cotton man drew this bill. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Is it not a fact. Senator, that the question 
of the use of screenings really is left entirely to the discretion of the 
Secretary of Agriculture in the bill? 

Senator I\ei;d. Well, I have just read this part of it carefully. 
You may have put some discretion in the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The Chairman. I would like to say that in my judgment screen- 
ings ought to be excepted from this provision. 

Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, there are undesirable 
screenings ; there is no question about that. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. Here is the point I want to get 
at, though : There is a very wides])read misapprehension as to what 
this amendment proposes to do. This doe-; not propose to prohibit 
the interstate shipment of damaged grains or timothy hay or cotton- 
seed hulls. But those things are rougliage, they are not concentrated 
feedstuffs. and they ought not to be covered up with l)lack-strap mo- 
lasses and palmed off on the farmer as concentrated feedstuffs. That 
is what this amendment undertakes to prohibit. Sell Avhat you are 
actually selling and let the farmer know what he is buying. There 
is no disposition to prohibit the sale of any feedstuff that has any 
feeding value. 

Senator Reed. Is that what the bill says? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; that is what it says. 

Senator Reed (reading) : 

Tliat it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provifled, for any per- 
son, tinn, or corporation knowinjrly to ship, ofl'cr tor shipment, or transport in 
commerce anionic the several Stites or for commerce with foreij^n coimtries any 
concentrated CDnimercial feedina; stuffs containing? any damasrcd feed, mill, ele- 
vator, or other sweepings or dust — 

Containing any of that. 

The Chairman. Yes; sold as concentrated feedstuff's; not sohl as 
timothy hay or cotton hulls. 

Senator Reed. All right. I was using timothy hay merely to illus- 
trate; I was not using it as being completely within the bill. [Ri-ad- 
ing:] 

any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill, 
elevator, or other sweepings — 

And yet there are mill, elevator, and other sweepings that are im- 
questionably of food value. The bill mentions buckwheat hulls, 
cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, and peanut shells; I know nothing 
about their food value, whether they have any or not. Rice hulls, 
oat hulls— I undertake to say that oat hulls have a food value. 

The Chairman. There is no doubt of that 

Senator Reed. I have bought them as such and fed them as such. 
[Reading:] 

Corncobs ground, cocoa shells, clipped oat by-product, ground or ungmund 
hulls, screenings, chalT, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, clean- 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 21 

ing, or milling of any seed or grain wlien separated from the standard product 
as an offal or by-product, or such preparation, cleaning, or milling, humus, peat, 
spagnum moss, ivory-nut turnings, ground cornstalks, flax-plant refuse, sorghum 
pulp, ground or shredded straw or hay, sawdust, cellulose, or dirt, or any other 
foreign material. 

That is all prohibited up to that point. 

Now, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue a written 
permit for the shipment of concentrated commercial feeding stuffy; 
containing a mixture of foreign material which in his judgment is 
inseparable from such prepared feeds or which does not detract 
materially from its feeding value. You have prohibited it, and then 
you alloAv him to permit it under this limitation. Read that. I do 
not want to argue this with you gentlemen, who are very patient 
with me, but read that and ask yourselves whether it does not in 
fact prohibit even the Secretary of Agriculture from permitting 
anything to come in except that which he considers is inseparable 
from such prepared feeds and that which does not detract materially 
from their feeding value. 

Everybody knows that a damaged article has subtracted from it a. 
part of its food value, and yet it has a food value. It may have a 
food value of 90 per cent or it may have a food value of 25 per cent, 
Tbut whatever it is it ought not to be lost at a time like this. 
(Eeading:) 

Prov-idcd. That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to 
show to purchasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each 
ingredient entering into the composition of same, or if such feed stuffs are 
shipped in bulk in carload lots then the bill of lading and the bill from manu- 
facturer to purchaser of same shall both show such analysis. 

Now, I think it is entirely proper to require any animal food that 
is sold to be honestly labeled, to tell just what it is ; there is no reason 
why that should not be true of everything we use. But if it has 
been, honestly labeled then can not the farmer and others be trusted 
to protect themselves? 

Senator Kellogg. Will the chairman allow me to add one thing? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Senator Kellogg. I should have said to the committee that in 
Minnesota the amount of screenings that are taken out, the sale of 
them, and the whole subject is under regulation by the Minnesota 
Railroad and Warehouse Commission, under which every elevator 
in Minnesota is operated. I have never heard of any complaint of 
any fraud in the sale of .screenings, which is a matter of very large 
commercial importance. 

The Chairman. I Avould like to say in that connection that any 
Member of the Senate or House who has telegrams that he desires 
to file may do so. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SHAFKOTH, A UNITED STATES 
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO. 

Senator Shafroth. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have 3 or 4 
minutes. I will state that the parties from whom I have received 
telegrams are very much interested in alfalfa meal. That is an 
industry that has grown up in our State and is attaining large pro- 
portions. We ship 210,000 tons. It is mixed with nothing; there 



22 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

is no adulteration contained in it at all. Our interest in this matter 
is not from the standpoint of anything deleterious being placed in 
the meal but in the fact that it might destroy the market so far as 
the meal is concerned by hindering the sale of the mixed feeds in 
Avhich our alfalfa meal adds so much to the general feeding quality 
of the mixtures. 

We have 44 mills out in Colorado, and it is an industry that has 
gro\\'n up very recently. It is evident from the discussion that has 
been going on here that this is a matter that requires a great deal 
of close investigation and technical learning. I have great confi- 
dence in the chairman of this committee, and I know he wants 
nothing but what is fair and right. His desire is to prevent adul- 
teration if it is bad. I am satisfied this bill will be amended by this 
committee, if it wants to report a measure, but inasmuch as this is 
an amendment that has never been reported nor investigated by a 
committee, at least in the Senate, and as it comes as a rider upon an 
appropriation bill, which often is productive of hasty legislation, 
I would like to suggest that this be deferred in some way until you 
get a bill of j^our own, a bill that is separate. 

The Agricultural Committee of the Senate is a great committee, 
and it can put before the Senate at any time a measure of this kind, 
after thorough investigation upon your part, and it seems to me that 
would be better than to take a measure that is introduced upon the 
floor of the House without a committee report. 

These are very serious matters — serious matters to my State, I 
know, as to whether our alfalfa market is going to be destroyed. 

There is one item in this measure which relates to the question 
of hay. Alfalfa is hay, and it may be that that is one of the things 
that is prohibited in this mixture, I know it was not the intention 
of the chairman to include that, because alfalfa is one of the finest 
ingredients in the make-up of this mixed food, and on that account 
1 want to suggest the question whether or not the word " hay " there 
would not have a tendency to prevent the putting into the com- 
pound of one of the very best ingredients. Inasmuch as this measure 
has not had that deliberation which this committee always gives, and 
as this very hearing will nicl very materially in forming an opinion 
as to what should go into it, I suggest the question whether it would 
not be wise to introduce a separate bill, or let it go over until the 
next general appropriation bill this winter. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman. I may be a little 
mixed in my definitions, my terminology. Senator Reed has inter- 
jected here the question of hay. What is the recognized difference in 
ithe trade, if any, between what you are denominating here concen- 
trated feeds and the ordinary feeds that are sold 'i 

The Chairman. I will try to bring that out in the course of the 
hearing, the distinction between roughage and concentrated feeds. 
Hay is, of course, specified as roughage, and so are cottonseed hulls, 
both of wliich have a very high feeding value but are not concen- 
trated feeds. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I can not follow this discus- 
sion intelligently until I get some clear understanding as to what is 
meant by concentrated feed. Do you mean by " concentrated feed " 
a compound of elements which, singly and alone are concentrated? 
Is that Avhat a'ou mean? 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 23 

The Chairman. I do not think it would mean that entirely. It 
would mean the exclusion of anything that had no feeding value 
or very low feeding value. 

Mr. Abbott. May I interject a suggestion at this time? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; go ahead. 

Mr. Abbott. You have sent for a representative of the Department 
of Agriculture, from the Bureau of Chemistry. I understand Dr. 
Haywood is in the room, and undoubtedly he is in a position to 
answer these technical questions such as Senator Smith has just 
brought up. I should appreciate it if you would call upon him at 
this time. 

The Chairman. We will hear Dr. Haywood next. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN K. HAYWOOD, CHIEF OF MISCELLANE- 
OUS DIVISION, BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- 
CULTURE, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE AND 
FUNGICIDE BOARD. 

The CifAiRMAN. How long have you been connected with the de- 
partment. Dr. Haywood? 

Dr. Haywood. Twenty-two years. 

The Chairman. Doctor, you may go ahead and state whatever 
occui's to you in connection with this amendment. You might first 
discuss concentrated feeding stuffs. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. I should like to hear that, 
Doctor. I should like to know the distinction in the trade between 
a concentrated feed and the feed that is ordinarily sold. 

Dr. Haywood. Senator Smith, there is one trouble with this 
amendment according to my view, and that is ^hat there is no fixed 
definition for a concentrated commercial feeding stuff. The term 
"concentrated commercial feeding stuff" has a different definition 
in nearly every State. Each State law gives a definition of what is 
meant by " concentrated commercial feeding stuff" in that particular 
State, and in any one State the definition differs from what it is in 
another State. In general they mean by " concentrated feeds " those 
that have high digestibility and low crude fiber; they usually have 
a high protein value and have a narrow nutritive ratio. That, in 
general, is what is meant by " concentrated feeding stuff." But 
there is no fixed definition in this country that I know of. 

Senator Smith of South Carolina. So that in producing a con- 
centrated feeding stuff they just use whatever in their judgment has 
a high protein content, no luatter whether it is alfalfa, corn, or wheat, 
or a combination of all of them? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir; they use many things that have a high 
protein content in making these commercial concentrated feeding 
stuffs, and thej are recognized as concentrated commercial feeding 
stuffs by the laAvs of the different States. 

The Chairman. In that you would not include sawdust, would 
you, doctor? 

Dr. Haywood. No. sir; that has no feeding value. 

The Chairman. What are ivory-nut turnings? 

Dr. Haywood. I believe they make buttons from ivory nuts, and 
they get turnings from these, which are very hard and woody and 
very low in protein and fat, but they have carbohydrates in them. 
There is considerable feeding value in ivory-nut turnings. 



24 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The Chairman. Then would 3'ou regard it as a concentrated feed? 

Dr. Haywood. I would not call it a concentrated feed bj^ itself; 
no, sir. 

Representative Haugen. Has it any food value whatever? 

Dr. Haywood. It certainly has, sir. The Department of Agricul- 
ture has published a bulletin on that. 

Representative IIaugex. Hoav about the buckwheat hulls? Let us 
take them in the order they occur in the amendment. 

Dr. Haysvood. Buckwheat hulls have some feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. How much? 

Dr. Haywood. Small ; I can not tell you how much. 

Representative Haugen. How about cottonseed hulls? 

Dr. Hayavood. They have some feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. How much? 

Dr. Haywood. Small; probably 4 to 5 per cent of protein. 

Representative Haugen. How do they compare with corn or oats, 
for example ? 

Dr. Haywood. A good deal less; I can not give you the exact 
figures. 

Representative Haugen. How about peanut hulls? 

Dr. Haywood. Peanut hulls — making a distinction between them 
and peanut shells — have quite a little feeding value, because there 
is a good deal "of fat in them. 

Representative Haugen. Can you give it in percentage in com- 
parison with other feeds? 

Dr. Haywood. Perhaps I can find it. 

The Chairman. What is the difference between peanut hulls and 
peanut shells? 

Dr. Hayavood. The peanut shell is the outside white part of the 
peanut that is taken off. The peanut hull is that little red part that 
is around the nut itself. 

Representative Haugen. How about rice hulls? 

Dr. Hayavood. They liaA^e practically no feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. And oat hulls ? 

Dr. Hayavood. Thej^ have some feeding value, but Ioav. 

RepresentatiA'e Haugen. Can. you giA^e it in percentage? 

Dr. Hayavood. I would say they contain in the neighborhood of 
from 4 to 5 per cent protein. 

RepresentatiA^e Haugen. And how about corncobs? 

Dr. Hayavood. Corncobs have a low feeding value; I would 
say jDrobably — I am guessing now — about 3 to 4 per cent protein. 
It is low. 

Representative Haugen. "Well, is it worth paying the freight ? 

Dr. Hayavood. I do not know whether it is or not; it should not 
be thrown away. 

Representative Haugen. It should not be thrown away ; of course 
not; but is it Avorth manufacturing? 

Dr. Haywood. I think so. 

RepresentatiA'e Haugen. It is worth the price of manufacture? 

Dr. Hayavood. I think it is. 

Representative Haugen. And paying the freight? 

Mr. Ward. If you sell it in these foods, it is well worth it. 

Representative Haugen. How about cocoa shells? 



ADULTEEATION" OF MIXED FEEDS. 25 

Dr. Hayavood. They have quite a little food value. 

The Chairman. What are they? 

Dr. Hayavood. In the making; of chocolate and cocoa, these dark- 
brown shells that are taken off from the outside of the bean are quite 
woody, but they have a considerable amount of protein. 

Representative Haugen. Will you put in the record the percentage 
and give us some comparisons? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. How about the screenings? 

Dr. Haywood. Some screenings have a high feeding value? 

Representative Haugen. And others have not? 

Dr. Haywood. Some have a low feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. And some have very little or none? 

Dr. Haywood. I do not know of any that have none ; but some are 
quite low. 

Representative Haugen. Some of them are very undesirable as 
feed, or otherwise? 

Dr. Haywood. I should say that some should not be used as feed. 

Representative Haugen. Screenings containing quack grass seed, 
for instance? 

Dr. Hay^vood. I do not know that it makes so much difference 
about the seeds they contain, because in manufacturing these feeds 
they are ground up so as to destroy the viability of the seeds. It 
is feeding value that we are after, and many of the weed seeds have 
a high feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. But by the use of the seed in feed or 
otherwise is there not danger of spreading the quack grass? We 
were buying seed wheat in our country last year, and we got our 
farms covered with quack grass and other objectionable weeds. 

Dr. Haywood. There is danger. If weed seeds are not ground 
up there is a danger of their passing right through the animal and 
putting noxious weed seeds all over the land; but if the seeds are 
ground up so as to destroy their sprouting capacity, as they are m 
most of the mills, there is little danger of that. 

Representative Haugen. There is no way of grinding the quack 
grass seed and preventing its germination. You can grind it and 
burn it and burn the ashes, and it will grow then. [Laughter.] 

Dr. Haywood. I have been in a good many of these mills where 
the grinding is carried on, and they grind these seeds and then bolt 
them through bolting cloth, and I do not believe you would get any 
seed that would go through the bolting cloth that would grow. 

Representative Haugen. I have been combatting the quack grass 
and Canadian thistle, and I have no use for them. 

Dr. Hay^vood. I am with you there. 

Representative Haugen. You have read this bill. Does this leave 
it to the discretion of the Secretary as to the regulation of the mix- 
ture and the shipment? 

Dr. Haywood. I do not think so; no, sir. There are a good many 
things I do not understand about the bill. I think it is very am- 
biguous in places. 

Representative Haugen. Would not the language in sections 20 
and 21 leave that to the discretion of the Secretary as to what screen- 
ings might be used and as to the use of these hulls ? 



26 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Dr. Haywood. Personally I do not think it does. 
Representative Lee. How about the feeding value of black mo- 
lasses? Some reference has been made to it. 

Dr. Haywood. It has quite a high carbohydrate feeding value. 
Under the food and drugs act there is an item which says that 
feed is adulterated if it contains a deleterious ingredient which may 
render the same injurious to health. So if a feed contains enough of 
a seed that is sufficiently poisonous to hurt the cattle, I should think 
we could rule it out under the food and drugs act. 
Mr. Ward. You have now ruled it out, have you ? 
Dr. Hay^vood. Yes, sir ; we have. We have ruled out some things 
that we knew to be poisonous. I can not remember the names of all 
of them. 

The Chairman. Could you furnish a list of those things in con- 
nection with your statement? 

Dr. Haywood. I shall be very glad to do that. 
Representative Haugen. To what extent has the Federal law re- 
ferred to here been enforced? 

Dr. Hayavood. The Federal law is being vigorously enforced 

Representative Haugen. I mean in reference to feeds. 
Dr. Haywood, It is being vigorously enforced. There is an or- 
ganization here in the department which is at the head of it, and 
then the various branch laboratories of the Bureau of Chemistry 
throughout the country are engaged in the collection of cattle-feed 
samples and the examination of the same for the purpose of deter- 
mining whether they are adulterated or misbrandect under the act. 

I would say that feeds have been more largely attended to than 
they should be as compared with foods and drugs, which are more 
important. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Brown, the secretary of the 
Manufacturers' Association ? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes ; I have known him for many years. 
The Chairman. Do you know he was formerly connected with the 
New York State department of agriculture? 
Dr. PIayavood. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And had to do with the division that dealt with 
the fraudulent practices? 
Dr. Haywood. Yes. sir. 

The Ch-airman. Did he not suppress a good deal of that while 
he was in that office? 
Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I did not mean that he suppressed the use of it; 
but did he not suppress the analysis of the samples and cover up 
those practices so as to protect those people? 

Dr. Haywood. No, sir. I never heard of him doing any such 
thing, and I vroulcl not have believed it if I had. 

The Chairman. Do you know why, after that service, he was 
transferred to the secretaryship of the Feed Manufacturers' Asso- 
ciation, which he had been attempting to control? 
Dr. Haywood. No, sir; I do not. 

Representative Haugen. To what extent does the department 
regulate the manufacture and sale of feeds at the present time? 
What is required of the manufacturers? Are they required to label 
them? 



ADULTEEATIOK OF MIXED FEEDS. 27 

Dr. Haymood. Under the food and drugs act, which applies to 
feeds just the same as it does to foods and drugs ; every item in the 
food and drugs act that applies to feeds declaring them adulterated 
or misbranded applies also to feeds. 

That act requires, among other things, that every statement on the 
label be true; that no statement that is false or misleading in any 
particular shall be made; that nothing shall be substituted for the 
article labeled ; and nothing added to it which injuriously affects its 
quality or strength; that the article shall not be sold if it is partly 
or wholly composed of putrid materials; that the article shall be 
declared to be adulterated if it contains an injurious ingredient 
which renders it injurious to health. 

Now, with that item in the food and drugs act, saying that every- 
thing on the label must be true, and the State feed laws, we have 
been able to control feeds quite well. I do not mean we have every- 
thing we want, but we have been able to control feeds quite well. 
There are some thirty odd States that have feed laws. Most of 
those States require that an analysis be given on the label of the 
feed sold in the St^te and that all the ingredients be given on the 
label of the feed sold in the State, Now, those feeds, practically all 
of them, or at least most of them, are shipped in interstate commerce. 

Therefore if a feed is shipped in interstate commerce and goes to a 
certain State it has on it a statement of the analj^sis and of the in- 
gredients. If this statement of the analysis is not true, or if the 
statement of the ingredients is not true, then the product is mis- 
branded under the food and drugs act. 

So, with the two together, we are able to control feeds — not en- 
tirely to our satisfaction, but very acceptably. 

Representative Haugen. What State law3 require an analysis in 
the statement? 

Dr. Haywood. I should say between 30 and 40 ; it is nearer 40. 

Representative Haugen. Is there any objection to that? 

Representative Cakdler. Somebody has suggested that the number 
is 42. 

Dr. Hay^vood. Yes ; I believe it is in the neighborhood of 42. 

Mr. Abbott. Our records show that it is 42. 

Mr. Ward. When you spoke of being satisfactory, satisfactory to 
whom did you mean — to the feed manufacturers, to your depart- 
ment, or to the dairymen ? 

The Chairman. I should like to suggest to those present that if 
they Avill wait until the members of the conference connnittee inter- 
rogate the witness, it will be in the interest of order. 

Senator Kexyox. I thought of asking that same question that the 
gentleman has just propounded: Satisfactory to whom? 

Dr. Haywood. My answer to that question is that I can not speak 
for the whole Department of Agriculture. I do not know the views 
of the Secretary on this matter. I have not heard what his views are 
relative to this matter. I can only say as a man who has aided in the 
enforcement of the food and drugs act since it went into effect, so 
far as it applies to feeds, that with the food and drugs act as it is and 
with the State laws as they are, we have been able to control feeds 
quite acceptably, but not entirely satisfactorily ; there are some things 
that still ought to be controlled that we can not control. 



28 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Representative Lever. What, for instance? 

Dr. Haywood. Well, I think there ought to be an item actually 
ruling out things that are of no feeding value. I would say that if 
sand, or if soil, or if sphagnum moss, or peat, or rice hulls, or saw- 
dust were in a feed — they should certainly be ruled out. 

Representative Lever. Can you not rule them out now? 

Dr. Haywood. There is some little doubt about it, Mr. Lever; I 
believe we can. 

Representative Lever. All you have got to do is to publish the 
name of the firm doing that, and you will rule them out quicker than 
lightning. 

Dr. Haysvood. Tn the case of sand, we have cases against people 
putting sand in their feeds. We had one case, if I remember cor- 
rectly, of a man putting sawdust in his feed. We have had no cases 
of sphagnum moss or of peat, because we have not the basis on which 
we can absolutely declare that those have no feeding value, although 
it is my opinion that they have no feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. The peat has been ruled out somewhere; I 
do not know whether by the Department of Agriculture or by a 
State. I know a firm that has been proceeded against for doing that. 

Dr. Haywood. We have never had a case on peat, so far as I re- 
member. And, as I say, that is only because we have not the in- 
formation before us that we could put in court that peat is abso- 
lutely without feeding value. 

Representative Lever. Do you mean to say that you can not rule 
out sawdust under your present law? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes; we can. 

Representative Lever. And vou can rule out sand under the present 
law? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 

Representative Lever. You can rule out anything that is dele- 
terious to health? 

Dr. Haywood. Anything that is deleterious to health. 

Representative Lever. Or that has no feeding value? 

Dr. Haywood. I believe we could rule out things without feeding 
value; but I believe it would make it plainer if it stated those actual 
things in the law. 

Representative Lever. That may be true. 

Representative Haugen. Are you certain as to the ruling out of 
sawdust, or anything that has no feeding value? Does the law 
l)rovide for that? 

Dr. Haywood. I feel pretty certain of that. 

Representative Lever. Let me ask you this : Have you ever done it? 

Dr. Haywood. There has only been one case that I ever ran across 
m my life where there was any sawdust. 

Representative Lever. And you ran that out of business? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 

Representative Lever. I have been a little surprised at hearing you 
say that you had the machinery for doing this kind of work. Have 
you a force of men inspecting feeds throughout the country to ascer- 
tain if they are complying Avith the food and dru^s act? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir; the food and drugs act inspectors, among 
their other duties, are told to collect feed samples just as much as 
food and drugs samples. 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 29 

JReprtseiitative Lever. So that if we were to amend the food and 
drugs act to give you just what you want, what amendment would 
you propose in general? 

Dr. Haywood. In general, I would ask so as to have it specific 
in our law that the analysis be given on the bag of the feed; I would 
ask that each and every ingredient be named upon the bag. 

Senator Smith of Georgia. And the proportion of eath? 

Dr. Haywood. I would not ask that the proportion of each be 
given ; no, sir ; for reasons which I will give you later on if you wish. 
I would ask that certain things that I felt sure did not have a feed- 
ing value be ruled out, such things as I have spoken of before, 

Kepresentative Lever. Would you fix a moisture content? 

Dr. Haywood. No, sir. Personally, that is as far as I would go. 
But I can not speak for the Department of Agriculture there. The 
Secretary might feel that there should be come control over things 
of low feeding value. Personally, I feel that things of low feed 
value should not be thrown away, because I think it is bad economy, 
but I am only presenting my personal opinion now.. 

Representative Lever. Would you have this proposed amendment 
to the act make definitions for various feeds, what is a proper feed 
and what is an improper feed, and so on, as definitions are given in 
the pure food act? 

Dr. Haywood. Will you please give an example ? ' 

Representative Lever. For instance, we had a discussion here, be- 
tween Senator Smith and the chairman of the Senate committee, 
about definitions 

Dr. Haywood (interposing). I believe without definitions you 
could not enforce the act. 

Representative Lever. You would have to have a basis on which 
to determine your action? 

Dr. Haywood. We would have to have a basis; and there is not 
any fixed standard or definition for commercial feed at the present 
time ; you would have to work that out. 

Representative LevI:r. Would it be practicable to work out ma- 
chinery by Avhich you could have the contents of a carload lot 
shown — show the ingredients in it: So much cotton seed; so much 
chaff; so much dirt; so much sawdust, etc.? 

Dr. Haywood. The name and percentage of each ingredient? 

Representative Lever. Yes ; and, of course, it would have to go on 
tlje bill of lading? 

Dr. Haywood. I do not think it would be practicable for a man 
to have to tell the name and percentage of the amount of each and 
every ingredient in it. I think it would be perfectly practicable for 
him to have to tell the name of the ingredients, but as to the per- 
centage of the amount, I doubt it. 

Representative Lever. Would you not require him, as most of the 
State laws do require him, to give the percentage of protein ? 

Dr. Haywood. I would require him to give the percentage of 
protein, the fat, and the crude fiber. Those are the three main 
things. 

Representative Lever. Would you require him to give the per- 
centages of those? 

Dr. Haywood. The actual percentage, because that could be de- 
termined, and the manufacturer can keep to that. But if he does 



30 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

give the actual percentage, and his list consists of 8 or 10 ingredi- 
ents, these ingredients vary in composition from time to time; one 
day he is using screenings with 16 per cent of protein in it, the next 
day he is using screenings with 7 per cent of protein. 

Now, in order to keep to his protein figure that he has to put on 
his label, one day he would have to use more cottonseed meal to 
bring up his protein figure to what he states on his label, and less, 
we Mill say, of screenings. The next day his screenings being higher, 
he does not have to use so much cottonseed meal. 

Therefore, a manufacturer would constantly have to varj' his pro- 
portions according to the things he is working with. 

Therefore I do not think it is feasible to ask him to give the per- 
centage amount of each one of these ingredients. 

And, further than that, if he did give the percentage amount I 
think that the chemists and the microscopists could not tell after- 
wards, when he says, " I have 15 per cent of oat hulls in here," or, 
" I have 15 per cent of cottonseed hulls in here " — we could not tell 
whether that man was correct in his statements or not, because our 
science has not advanced to that extent. 

The Chairman. May I usggest that we can have Dr. Haywood 
before us at any time ; and there are several gentlemen here who have 
come quite a distance. I wonder if we could not abbreviate this 
hearing just a little by hearing those gentlemen now? 

Dr. Haywood has given quite an elaborate answer, and I do not 
mean to cut off Members of the House in their questions now. 

Representative Lever. We can question Dr. Haywood later. 

The Chairman. Yes. Are there any other Members of the House, 
or of this committee, who desire to ask Dr. Haywood any questions 
now? 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, if it meets with your approval, we 
would like to have you consider at this time further testimony from 
the feed manufacturers. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I was asking if any Senator or 
Member of the House desired to ask any further questions of Dr. 
Haywood at this time? If not, I believe Judge Ward wanted to ask 
him a few questions. 

Mr. Ward. With the permission of the chairman, I will ask you. 
Dr. Haywood, have you made any investigation of the sulphuric 
seep water from the gluten factories? 

Dr. HayW'OOd. I have not made any study of the actual amount of 
water, but this is w^hat I think you mean : During the manufacture of 
starch and glucose from corn the corn has to soak in a sulphurous 
acid solution, if I am not mistaken, and that takes out quite a little 
of the food constituents from the corn, and later on that is evaporated 
to a sirupy consistency and added to the bran of the corn and the 
fine cornstarch particles that have been separated from the corn, and 
also the germ of the corn — that is, added to it again — and the whole 
thing is sold as a feed. 

Mr. Ward. As a feed. Now, are you familiar with the effect of 
sulphur treatment on the protein? 

Dr. Hayavood. No, sir; I can not say that I am. 

Mr. Ward. I understand that your department has put out a bul- 
letin that that sulphuric seep water is unavailable in the grain as a 



ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 31 

tissue-feeding factor ; that is, that it has not any food value, although 
it has a high protein content? 

Dr. Haywood. I could not answer that question. 

Mr. Ward. I get that from one of the bulletins of your department. 

Representative Lever. That would come under the Bureau of 
Chemistry, would it not? 

Dr. Haywood. I am connected with the Bureau of Chemistry, but 
I think the Bureau of Animal Industry could answer that question 
better than I can. Dr. Alsberg himself could give a good answer to 
that question, because he has studied that subject. 

Mr. Ward. The natural effect of the sulphur on the protein would 
be to destroj^ the food value of the protein, would it not? 

Dr. Haywood. I could not sav that is true; no. sir. 

Mr. Ward. That is all. 

The Chairman. I undestood you to say a few moments ago that 
you could stop the use of sawdust and sand and that you had brought 
some suits against the use of sawdust. Do you bring suits against 
persons who offend under your rules ? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, you have to rule these things out, do you 
not? 

Dr. Haywood. No. sir; we do not have to rile them out. If we 
find something that has no food value, like sawdust and sand, the de- 
partment lets the man know, by a citation, that he is breaking the 
law ; and if he violates the law we put the case in the hands of our 
solicitor; he puts it in the hands of the Department of Justice and 
the Department of Justice puts it in the hands of the United States 
District Attorney in the district from which shipment was made. 

The Chairman. Then you go to court with the case? 

Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long since you have been to court with one 
of these cases? 

Dr. Hayavood. With any of these feed cases? 

The Chair:man. Yes. 

Dr. Haywood. Personally, I have not been in court for several 
years, but men under me, other men in the Bureau of Chemistry, I 
suppose I could say that they are constantly going into court. 

The Chairman. Could you furnish the commitree a lis!" of some of 
the suits brought in the last four or five years? 

Dr. Hayavood. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. I wish you Avould do so. 

(The list referred to was subsequently submitted by Dr. HayAVood, 
and is here printed in full, as follows:) 

The Chairman. You are reported. Dr. Haywood, on page 60 of 
"Flour and Feed" for December, 1913, as saying to the manufac- 
turers that it was no longer necessary' to go into court for these 
offenses. 

Dr. Hayaa'OOd. Will you pleiise read exactly Avhat I said — because 
it has been a long time since I said that? 

The Chairman. The Clerk will read the article in question. 

(The Clerk thereupon read the article referred to, as follows:) 

Dr. Haywood, of the United States Department of Agriculture, assured the 
meeting that it was no longer necessary to go to court to settle differences. 



32 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Dr. Haywood. I never made such a remark r,s that. I have said 
before the Feed Manufacturers Association that the cooperation that 
was taking place between the feed manufactur')rs and the feed-con- 
trol officials was such that the number of cases against them ought 
to be greatly reduced from what it was in the beginning, because 
they were doing much better than they used to do. 

The Chairjuax. When you said awhile ago that the law was ac- 
ceptable, did you mean acceptable to the feed m:uiufacturers? 

Dr. Haywood. No; it is the feed-control officials that I am talking 
about. I do not know what the feed-control manufacturers feel. 

The Chairman. I will have the Clerk read you another extract 
from " Flour and Feed." 

(The Clerk thereupon read the following extract:) 

Dr. Haywood, of the United States Department of Agricultui*e, sitting with 
ttie feed manufacturers, moved the adoption of the phrase " Corn gluten feed " 
to cover the stuff Ivuown as " cornstarch by-products witli corn bran," urging 
that the word " refuse " be dropped in describing the chaff, empty liulls, im- 
mature oats, and dust. 

Dr. Hay^vood. I would like to look at that article. 

Senator Kenyox. Was this a speech that you made at a banquet? 
(Laughter.) 

Dr. Haywood. I know that those speeches are not always quoted 
correctly. 

The Chairmax. That was before Washington went dry. (Laugh- 
ter.) But this does not seem to be a speech at all; it seems to be a 
motion'. 

Representative Caxdler. That seems to be a motion submitted by 

Dr. Hayavood (examining paper). I should say this: My opinion 
is that the words " refuse " and " offal " are not as good as the phrase 
"by-product." I think " by-product " is the better word to de- 
scribe it. 

The Chairman. Better than " refuse " ? 

Dr. Haywood. I think " by-products " is usually a better term to 
describe the by-products of the food industry than " refuse " or 
" offal " because " refuse " and " offal " give the idea to the mind of 
the general public of not having any feed value at all I think. 

Mr. Ward. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question ? 

The Chairman. Yes; certainly. 

Mr. Ward. I show jou this label. Dr. Haywood, which contains 
the term " corn gluten feed." Now, that is the same feed that you 
gave the definition for. composed largely of refuse? 

Dr. Haywood. Well, corn gluten feed 

Mr. Ward (interposing). Just answer this question: Is that term 
" corn gluten feed " the same term referred to at thib meeting in 
your resolution — that that definition be used in the place of " refuse" 
and "offal"? 

Dr. Haywood. I think it is. 

Mr. Ward. And consisted of oat hulls, corn hulls, and such other 
articles as that resolution named ? 

Dr. Haywood. And corn proteids — which give it quite a high 
feeding value. Corn gluten consists of corn hulls, some cornstarch, 
corn proteids, and usually solubles. 



ADULTEEATIOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 3,3 

Eepresentative Lever. May I inquire who the gentleman is who 
asked the last question ? 

The Chairman. That is Judge Ward, from New York, who has 
been assisting the State department of agriculture to eradicate the 
shipment and use of fraudulent feed. 

Representative Lever. Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this 
suggestion : It seems to me that our whole proceeding in this matter 
this morning has been backward. Why should we not hear the wit- 
ness for the prosecution, so that the House Members of the Confer- 
ence Committee, at least, may know just exactly what is the situa- 
tion ? We see the amendment in the bill, of course ; but we know of 
no charges being made, except the charges that have been read here, 
and we are at a loss to know how to cross-examine these witnesses — 
certainly I am. 

It seems to me that the case of the Government in this matter 
ought to be uncovered, so that we can all see where we are. We are 
all trying to arrive at the best conclusion possible, of course. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, the Senate has passed this amend- 
ment. 

Eepresentative Lever. Yes ; it has passed the Senate. 

The Chairman. And I had supposed that those who were attack-* 
ing the amendment were representing the prosecution. 

Representative Lever. My own theory is that the House conferees 
will be in much better position to get information, both from the one 
side and from the other, if they know just what is the genuine pur- 
pose of this proposition, and what abuses have existed in the trade. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Representative Lever. Now, I looked at this amendment for the 
first time when the bill came over to the House from the Senate. 
We have been given an example here this morning of a certain 
amount of water being used in certain concentrated feeds. I would 
like to hear some more examples of abuses, so that we will know just 
where we are. Do you not think so, Senator Kenyon ? 

Senator Kenyon. I should not think so. I should think that when 
an amendment was passed by the Senate, and we were having a 
conference on the amendment, we ought to hear the objections first. 
I do not know anything about the amendment, of course. 

Representative Lever. But how can that be, without our knowing 
just what abuses there are in the trade — and we can get that infor- 
mation very well from the trade? 

The Chairman. You do not appear for the prosecution, you see. 

Representative Lever. Of course not, but we appear here to act in 
fairness and justness, having in view the whole situation. 

The Chairman. And those who are attacking the amendment and 
asking you to reject it ought to tell you why. 

Representative Lever. Well, I confess, as far as the conference has 
gone this morning, I have heard no example of abuse. 

Representative Haugen. We have heard the other side. 

Representative Lever. Yes; we have been hearing the other side. 
Would you not like to hear those who favor the amendment? 

Representative Haugen. I think it is simply a question of which 
side shall be heard first. I think we ought to accommodate those 
who come from a distance. 

81413—18 3 



84 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

''The Chairman. Yes; I think so; I shall be very gl0!^p^iK^c(m^ 
moclate them as far as we can. , ■'. ' !'-. j.,, ^' 

Representative Lever. What do you think, Mr. Candler f ^' ' 
Representative Candler. It seems to me that we are proceeding 
backward. When we hear the reasons for the amendment we ^aii 
better hear the objections to it. '*'■ /''.',, 

Representative Lever. I agree with you as to that. ' ' i"'''^ 

Representative Haugen. Is it not possible for the representa- 
tives of the tAvo sides to reach ah agreement asioliqW 'they shall 
proceed? \, \ ''V / ' '' *" ■'''^^'^-^j;;-^ ' ' 

The Chairman. We will tkke ^(feesl'lihtil 2.30 o'cloclt tliis after- 
noon. :,.-.■'' '^ ^'z' ■ :'■ • ^ -^ .'.I 

(Thereupon, at 12.35 p. m., the conference committee took a recess 
until 2.30 o'clock p. m.) ,. 

-. rifiv^ y'.)r, AFTER R^qES^tij oy ,w,, :,:, ,,.,,, .,.-.,.. 

rjiio') I'.s .'jfdia.riocf uoi-;jj!')i(0') J-;')c{ oHi ii; ^rf ivid o) ^a'vni Uj; 

The conference committee reassembled at 2.30 o'clock p. m., pur- 
suant to a recess taken. 

The Chairinean. Mr. Miller, is the party whom you wish to have 
.heard present ? " , , 

Representative Miller. Yes, sir; Mr. Jenks is present, but I think 
it would be well if Mr. Abbott was allowed to continue. 

The Chairman. I thought he had finished. Mr. Abbott, did you 
wish to say anything further? .,.,,; ,,^i.. ./ 

.' lii.i :<i'i'{ I'.ilf) 'to 080q 

STATEMENT OF MR. HAROLD A. ABBOTT— r^l^sumed. ^ "V 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir ; if it is agreeable to you, I would have these 
gentlemen brought in in due course. 

In reference to the hearing, Mr. Chairman, we understand that 
their position is that the agriculturists and experiment station men 
from New England who have had much to do with the feeding- 
stock laws of those States and of practical dairymen and breeders, 
some of them would like to get away this evening, and before putting 
on further testimony from our side of the case I would like Mr. 
Chapin to be heard ; but I would first ask if these other gentlemen 
could not be given an opportunity to make a statement. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, we will have somebody represen,^: 
ing the dairymen testify before the committee. f, ,,( 

Mr. Abbott. These gentlemen are not connected with us in,i^ny 
respect whatever. - ')vr.1x{tn989iq'j>I 

The Chairman. Yes ; I understand. i->.; r..,,, ,-.,.r,..:..> 

j Mr. Abbott. But I think their statement would be interesting. 

The Chairman. Of course, if they speak for the dairymen, we will 
be glad to hear from them; and I would like to have you ask them 
to present different phases of the question so as not to pile up on a 
certain point. Your statement, for Instance, lexhausted certain, 
points this morning; there is no use to keep on discussing those 
points, for example. I wish you gentlemen would bear that in mind, 
and we will try to speed the hearing up. I hope the gentlemen will 
limit their remarks to a few minutes each. 

Mr. Abbott. I dare say the gentlemen in question have all heard 
your comments on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and wiU.undpubtedly 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 35 

govern themselves accordingly — Prof. Smith, Prof. Story, Mr. Hepp- 
ler, and Mr. Hicks. 

Representative Lever. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insist that I 
should like to know what the prioposition involved here is, from the 
other side of it. 

The Chairman. That is my plan, and what Representative Miller 
has requested. 

Representative Lever. I am perfectly willing for Mr. Miller's 
statement to be heard for a few minutes, but it does seem to me that 
we ought to know what we are driving at on this whole proposition. 

Representative Miller. Then, if there is no objection, Mr. Jenks 
might be heard briefly, and then the other parties can present their 
statements. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to hear Mr. Jenks now. 

Representative Miller. All right. Mr. Jenks, will you make 
your statement? ■ ; : , i 

The Chairman. Will you state your name, residence, ,an.d business 
connections ? .^i?. .^^ Y .821 /taT, .'il ' 

STATEMENT OF MR. M. L. JENKS, PRESIDENT DULUTH BOARD OF 
TRADE, DTJLTJTH, MINN. ^^^,,i^ . 

Mr. Jenks. My name is M. L. Jenks, of Duliitli, Minn. I am 
president of the Duluth Board of Trade. 

We object to the amendment as proposed, as we believe it will be 
very injurious to the grain trade, and especially to the farmers of 
the Northwest. At present they are being paid to quite an extent 
for the amount of screenings that are contained in the grain. 

For instance, on wheat they are paid .at the rate of one-fourth of 
1 cent a bushel on each 1 per cent over 5 per cent of dockage in the 
wheat. This dockage is determined by the Minnesota Warehouse 
and Railroad Commission, 

On flax they are paid one-fourth of a cent per bushel on all dockage 
over 9 per cent. This is in accordance with an agreement to facili- 
tate business between the buyer and the seller. 

On barley, it is a matter of adjustment on price. The value is 
determined according to the amount of dockage on the barley, which 
is not specified by the inspector. 

We feel that our market for screenings will be narrowed down to 
the stock feed people alone, instead of having it, as now, the market 
of stock food manufacturers. 

I do not know that there is anything more that I want to say, Mr. 
Chairman. ' 

Representative Miller. Mr. Chairman, it may be somewhat in- 
formal, but is there any objection to my asking Mr. Jenks a few 
questions? , , 

^ - The Chairman. No. ^ \ 'C-d\^}\v'^ uu 1.; 'ir''v;'l:u!l M '■■ 

Representative Miller. I think it would "fee a^visalile if you would 
state to the committee, Mr. Jenks, the exact business your coijcern is 
carrying on — ^not the Duluth Board of Trade, but your own con- 
cern — and the relationship you bear to the farmers who are actually 
producing the grain of the Northwest. , , , 

Mr. Jenks. My concern is re]:)resented in diffei;eii^ j^arfets- — Kan- 
sas City, Omaha, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, t)iiluth, New 



33 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

York, and Boston. In Kansas City, Omaha, Chicago, Milwaukee, 
and Minneapolis, it is a commission business, to a large extent, sell- 
ing grain on commission consigned to them by farmers and farmers' 
organizations. At Duluth, at which place I am the manager, we 
do strictly an elevator business. 

In Iowa and Nebraska we have something like two hundred 
country houses. In our New York office, when it was profitable, we 
did an export business. 

Eepresentative Miller. As I understand from ^^ou, the screenings, 
so-called, are considered a commercial by-product, and compensa- 
tion for them is given to the farmers or the producers of the grain. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. Jenks. Yes, sir; and they are paid to a very large extent on 
all the value beyond the cost of removing the screenings from the 
grain. 

Representative Miller. Does that apply to all of that material 
called screenings? 

Mr. Jenks. Yes, sir. 

Representative Miller. Have you any market for those screenings 
aside from the feed manufacturers? 

Mr. Jenks. And stock feeders. 

Representative Miller. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Your objection, Mr. Jenks, seems to go principally 
to screenings. There are good screenings and bad screenings? 

Mr. Jenks. I did not quite understand your question. 

The Chairman. I say your objection seems to refer particularly to 
screenings, to including screenings in this amendment. Now. there 
are good screenings and bad screenings, are there not? 

Mr. Jenks. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, good screenings do not detract materially 
from the feed with which they are mixed, do they? 

Mr. Jenks. Except in this case, as I understand it, our market 
Avould be confined entirely to the stock feeders, and would not apply 
to the stock feed manufacturers. 

The Chairman. Well, I do not understand it so, Mr. Jenks. You 
notice a certain sentence of the amendment will permit the mixing of 
good screenings with the feed. That is what I want to call your 
attention to. 

Now. there are commodities enumerated to-day that you think 
ought to be excluded from the feed, are there? 

Mr. Jenks. Anything that is injurious certainly should be excluded. 

The Chairman. Well, do you not think there are some things 
enumerated in the amendment that would not be really merchantable 
feedstuffs? 

Mr. Jenks. I think so. 

The Chairman. Do you not think we ought to divide the good from 
the bad and work it out on that basis. 

Mr. Jenks. That would be satisfactory to us. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

Mr. Ward. At what prices do you sell these screenings to feed 
manufacturers ? 

Mr. Jenks. It depends entirely on the market;. at different times 
there are different prices. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 37 

Mr, Ward. Well, will you illustrate by giving- the lowest and the 
highest. 

Mr. Jenks. I should think about $2 a ton is the lowest I remember 
in the last 10 years ; from that up to $40 a ton. 

Mr. Ward. What is the present price? 

Mr. Jenks. Around $20 or $25. 

Mr. Ward. And you pay the farmer one cent a bushel over a certain 
price ? 

Mr. Jenks. We pay the farmer a quarter of a cent a bushel on each 
1 per cent over 5 per cent of wheat. If it was 9 per cent at their end, 
we would pay them one cent a bushel premium over their regular 
price. 

The Chairman. I suggest that at this point we have Dr. Jordan 
give us a definition and description of these things. Please state for 
the record your name, your post-office address, and your present 
official connection. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WHITMAN H. JOED AN, GENEVA, N. Y., DIREC- 
TOR NEW YORK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 

Dr. Jordan. My name is Whitman H. Jordan, Geneva, N. Y. 
I am director of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station. 

The Chairman. Dr. Jordan, I would like to hear you comment on 
concentrated feed and roughage and compound feed, and' particu- 
larly I want you to discuss the tendency as to whether the mixture 
of adulterants is increasing or decreasing. 

Dr. Jordan. Permit Piie to say, as showing the extent of observa- 
tion which I have had, thnt our institution has examined something 
over 10,000 samples of feeds since 1899. 

At first we simply required a giuiranteed chemical analysis. It was 
discovered that that did not meet the situation. Then, in order to 
secure more or less control over the inferior ingredients, which as 
a rule contain a large percentage of fiber, we required a statement 
of the maximum percentage of fiber. I refer to crude fiber, which 
is illustrated by cotton of the chief constituent of wood. 

That was not all we desired. We next required a statement of the 
ingredients — the kinds, not the quantities. 

Now, as to the tendencies, I can make some statements based upon 
the facts as to the developments in the sale of compounded feeds; and 
I might suggest right here that I think if you were to change the 
word " concentrated " in that proposed amendment to " compounded " 
it would more nearly meet the situation. 

The Chairman. And that would mean what, then ? 

Dr. Jordan. That would mean feeds that are made up by mixing 
several kinds together — two or more kinds. 

The Chairman. What do j^ou mean by a standard feed? 

Dr. Jordan. That is a term that I have been personally using, 
I mean by it feeds that have a fairly definite composition and digesti- 
bility, which may be illustrated by cottonseed meal, linseed meal, 
hominy feed, brewers' gi-ains, malt sprouts, and feeds of that type — 
the offals from wheat, etc. 

The Chairman. That run straight? 

Dr. Jordan. That run straight. In the figures which I shall give 
you I should like to have that definition of standard feeds apply. 



§S ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

In 1902 we examined 118 brands; G4 of those were standard and 
54 compounded. In 1906 we examined 295 brands, and 153 were 
standard, according to the definition I have given, and 142 com- 
IDOunded. 

The Chairman. Did you make an examination in 1902 or 1906 as 
to the kinds of feeds that had inferior materials in them ? 

Dr. JoRDON. No, sir ; I can not give you any information for those 
years, because we did not make any examinations in a definite way 
until 1909. 

The Chairmax. I see. 

Dr. Jordan. But in 1909 we examined 368 brands, and 195 were 
standard and 173 compounded. You will notice a tendencj' to in- 
crease of the compounded feeds. In that year every molasses feed 
contained oat hulls or screenings, and 34 out of the 49 feeds which 
w^ere apparently cereal grains, like corn and oats, contained some 
adulterant. 

In 1912, out of 480 samples, 172 were standard and 318 com- 
pounded; and 41 per cent of the compounded contained what we 
would class as inferior ingredients: I Avould not use the term 
" wortliless," but " inferior." 

I had time lately to go over 568 brands that have been collected 
since we reported ; I could not go over the 1.200 or more. But out of 
those 568 there w^ere 215 standard and 353 compounded; and out 
of the compounded, 59.7 per cent contained inferior ingredients. 

That shows the tendency in the way of the increase of compounded 
feeds. 

Now. if I may be permitted, I should like to make some observa- 
tions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Yes : certainly. 

Dr. Jordan. I think there is a fundamental question in here : That 
every purchaser or consumer is entitled to know what he purchases; 
and I think our New York law, which requires the chemical compo- 
sition, the maximum percentage of fiber and a statement of the kinds 
of ingredients, is a help. 

But, if there is no fair and reasonable way of so regulating the 
sale of these materials so that the purchaser shall know the amounts 
he buys would you think that fair in your dealing if you were buying 
a mixture of copper and gold? Whether that can be done is the 
question. 

The sale of these inferior ingredients is not a new thing; it has 
been going on since — well, we enacted our law in 1899, and it had 
been going on for quite a while then. But it has increased. 

I would like to make some comments also on this question of the 
basis of value of feeding stuffs. 

Our friends, the manufacturers — and I certainly do not want to 
say anything that does them any injustice — tell us that these things 
are not worthless, but have value. That is true of screenings and 
oat hulls, because both screenings and oat hulls contain a certain 
amount of material that is of fair nutritive value. 

But values for the farmer rest, not upon commercial values, but 

upon nutritive efficiency. It is wdiat the material is worth to the 

animal as a source of nutrition. Now, the inferior thing about most 

of these materials is that their percentage of digestibility is very low. 

To illustrate: peanut shells— and we have found some of those 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 39 

this year — have a digestibility of less than 15 per cent of the total 
dry matter; and it is only the digestible material that serves the 
animal. And peanut feed, 25.6 per cent; oat feed, when it is mostly 
Jiulls — and oat feed varies — 31 per cent; corncobs, 43.3 per cent. 

I ought to say that the use of corn cobs has diminished greatly 
since our friends in Kentucky ceased to send us wheat bran mixed 
with ground corn cobs. I could mention the names of some dealers 
who manufactured this mixture, and some of the gentlemen present 
would recognize them. We are not finding those much now. 

But the chief things used to-day of a somewhat inferior character 
as shown by our examinations are oat hulls and screenings. Our 
objection to the use of screenings without its being thoroughly under- 
stood as to the amount the farmer is buying is this : They are a varia- 
ble thing; the screenings of one year are not the same as the screen- 
ings of another year ; there are more weed seeds some years and less 
other years; more refuse and grit some years and less other years; 
and I wish, for the sake of the trade as well as for the sake of the 
consumer, that a farmer could know whether he was buying 10 per 
-cent of screenings or 15 per cent or 20 per cent. And if that can be 
accomplished, I think the object of these hearings and this proposed 
legislation will be accomplished. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Dr. Jordan a question ? 

The Chairman. I want to ask this question first: About concen- 
trated feed and roughage, does not the trade take some notice of the 
difference between concentrated feeds and roughage? I suppose the 
•definition is not really generic. 

Dr. Jordan. Well, that is a matter somewhat in discussion. The 
term " concentrates " and the term " roughage " originated with 
Prof. Henry, of Wisconsin,, in his first book ; and as he understood it, 
concentrates referred to materials that have concentrated nutrition, 
and, broadly speaking, the grains and certain of the by-products 
from the grains; roughage referred to haj's and cornstalks, straw, 
and materials of that kind. 

The Chairman. As a rule, good fanning would furnish the rough- 
age on the farm, would it not, or in the A'icinity of the farm? 

Dr. Jordan. Many farmers waste enough roughage to cover all of 
the inferior materials they buy in feeding stuflfs. 

The Chairman. And some of the ingredients enumerated in this 
amendment would be classified as roughage, would they not ? 

Dr. Jordan. I should classify oat hulls as roughage — that is, of the 
same class nutritively. 

The Chairman. That is, some of the articles enumerated in that 
section of the bill would hardly be worth the freight, would they? 

Dr. Jordan. That would be my judgment. Take peanut shells, for 
instance. I knew of a case of a carload of peanut shells standing on a 
sidetrack in the city of Buffalo, and they were used. 

Now, it is not that all of the feed manufacturers do these things ; 
but enough of them do these things to attract our attention occasion- 
ally ; and I suspect that our legislation is aimed at these abuses. 

Representative Lever. How will the nutritive value of peanut hulls 
compare with ordinary fodder? 

Dr. Jordan. It is very much less. 

Representative Lea'er. How much less ? 



40 ADULTEEATIOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Dr. Jordan. If you were to judge by the digestibility — I have the 
figures somewliere here. 

Representative Lever. Well, I mean roughly speaking. 

Dr. Jordan. Only about 15 per cent of peanut shells is digestible ; 
a fairly good mixed hay would have a digestibility of between 
50 and 60 per cent. 

Representative Lever. That is the fodder pulled from the corn- 
stalk, not the ordinary Timothy hay or clover; I mean the fodder 
pulled from cornstalks. 

Dr. JoRDON. Well cured cornstalks would have practically as high 
a digestibility as good hay. 

Representative Lever. How about corncobs? 

Dr. Jordan. The average digestibility of corncobs is 43 per cent. 

The Chairman. Would that be worth the freight? 

Dr. Jordan. Well, if I were feeding dairy cattle, I would not con- 
sider it so. 

Representative Lever. Let me ask you this question: All animals, 
bipeds and quadrupeds, need a certain amount of roughage, do they 
not? 

Dr. Jordan. Certainly. 

Representative Lever. If you feed a cow wholly on cottonseed meal, 
or peanut meal, for a week or 10 days, or several months, you would 
not have much of a cow left, probably, would you ? 

Dr. JoRDON. She would go to the fertilizer factory, probably, if so 
fed for months. 

Representative Lever. The proposition seems to arise that the 
farmers themselves should raise all the roughage they need; and I 
agree to that proposition. 

Dr. Jordan. That is true. 

Representative Le\T!;r. But there are lots of people who feed ani- 
mals that are not farmers; men in the livery business, for instance. 
Would you advocate the proposition of not allowing the peanut hulls, 
or cottonseed hulls, screenings and the like, to be used in feeds ? 

Dr. Jordan. I would advocate the proposition that if the city 
stableman wants to buy peanut hulls, let him do it, but let him know 
he is buying them. 

Representative Le\ter. What is your State law on the subject? 

Dr. Jordan. Our State law requires that all packages of feeding 
stuffs be labeled, with the name of the manufacturer or jobber; Avith 
the guaranteed chemical composition, and with the ingredients con- 
tained in the feed, if it is a compounded feed — or, indeed, if it is any 
feed — ^and the Commissioner of Agriculture is required to take sam- 
ples. Those samples are sent to the experiment station for analysis ; 
they are sent by number, by the way, so that we know nothing about 
the name of the brand. We make a report to the Commissioner of 
Agriculture, and the results are later published. 

Representative Lever. You have a way of protecting yourselves in 
this mater under your own law ? 

Dr. Jordan. I do not feel that the law as it stands fully protects 
the farmer, because under the law the sale of these inferior materials 
has increased, without any question, and the proportion of inferior 
materials is not known 

Representative Lever, Do you enforce your own law very strictly ? 



ADULTEEATIOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 41 

Dr. Jordan. I think we do. 

Representative Lever. What have you to say about the enforce- 
ment of the Federal law, as described this morning by Dr. Haywood ? 

Dr. Jordan. If the Federal Government were to depend upon the 
services of the chemists and microscopists in enforcing that law it 
would be a failure, because, whatever may be said, no living chemist 
or microscopist can pick those materials out after they are mixed. It 
is not a question of chemical composition ; it is a question of physical 
separation. Of course, we can identify them by the starch grains 
and by the forms of tissues, and sometimes wi^h the naked eye. But 
that is another matter from separating them and telling what per- 
centage exists. 

Representative Lever. What would be the machinery that you 
would set up to do that? 

Dr. Jordan. That is a hard question to answer. I think this would 
accomplish it if it can be done: An inspection of the factories — by 
the Federal Government of those doing an interstate trade, and by 
the States of those which do only an intrastate trade ; or it might 
be a combination of the two. I do not know that that is feasible. 

Another thing that has come to my mind; I am not saying it is 
wise, and that is this: To require that these materials shall be sold 
separately for what they are. 

Representative Lever. In other words, you would not allow any 
mixture at all? 

Dr. Jordan. I would not allow those inferior things to be put 
in, unless some way can be arranged whereby the amount shall be 
known — the proportion. 

Representative Lever. After all, your conclusion is that this 
amendment is a pretty serious proposition, and we had better give it 
very serious thought, is it not? 

Dr. Jordan. I think so. 

The Chairman. I would not state the witness's opinion for him, 
Mr. Lever. [Laughter.] 

Representative Leaer. Well, Dr. Jordan, and I are old friends, 
and I am merely trying to get his viewpoint. 

The Chairman. His mind seems to run with yours on that point. 

Representative Lever. AVhat would be your concrete proposal to 
put in the bill. Dr. Jordan^ Are you satisfied with this amend- 
ment as it is drawn? 

Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. You are not? 

Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. How would you amend it ? 

Dr. Jordan. It seems to me — well, I would not pretend to draw 
this amendment standing on my feet. 

The Chairman. I hope you will take the liberty of stating any 
amendments that may occur to 3^ou. 

Dr. Jordan. But I would like to comment on this language : 

That it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provided, for any per- 
son, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, offer for shipment, or transport in 
commerce among the several States or for commerce with foreign countries any 
concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill, ele- 
vator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat hulls, ^'ottonseed hulls, peanut 
hulls, peanut shells, rice hulls, oat hulls, corncobs ground, cocoa shells, clipped 
oat by-product, ground or unground hulls. 



42 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

It seems to me that the term " ground or imground hulls " in there 
would more or less place a hardship upon the oil people. Then the 
provision goes on as follows: Dsd 9ib to Juyju 

' T fT 

Screenings, chaff, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, cleaning, 
or milling of any seed or grain when separated from the standard product as an 
offal or by-product. 

Now, the words, "when separated from the standard product as 
an offal or by-product " are likely to draw into the net materials 
that we do not intend to exclude. I may be loose in my interpretation 
of that, but there I would certainly make a change. ■' '• 

Then I think the law should define what concentrated feeds ai^el 
In the New York State law we name the things that are concentrated 
feed, so that when litigation occurs there is a very definite ^thing 
before the court. iiul) ob oi qi/ f'j;- lAiurir 

The Chairman. Will you attach that to your' sta{4me'nt? ' ' 

Dr. Jordan. The New York law? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Dr. Jordan. I have not one with me, but I will be very glad to send 
the committee a copy. 

The Chairman. I wish you would do so. 

(The material referred to was subsequently submitted by Dr. 
Jordan, and is here printed in full, as follows:) i 

•I J o-/.(1(i]n')<'VK{9>' 
State of New York, Department of Agricultltre, Charles S; Wilson,' Oom- 

MissioNER — Circular 142, Provisions of the Agricultural Law Relating 

TO THE Sale and Analysis of Concentrated Commercial Feeding Stuffs, 

1916. 

ARTICLE 7. — sale AND ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS. 

Section 160. Term " concentrated commercial feeding stuffs " defined. 

161. Statements to be attached to packages ; contents ; analysis. 

162. Statements to be filed with commissioner of agriculture ; to be accompanied 

by sample and afl3davit when requested. 

163. License fee. 

164. Commissioner of agriculture to take samples for analysis ; analysis to be 

made by director of experiment station. 

165. Sale of adulterated meal or ground grains. 

Sec. 160. Term " conccnirnted covimercinl fcaUng stuffs" defined. — Tlie term 
" concentrated commercial feeding stuffs," as used in this article, shall inclutle 
linseed meals, cottonseed meals, pea meals, bean meals, peanut meals, cocoanut 
meals, gluten meals, gluten fee<ls, maize feeds, starch feeds, sugar feeds, dried 
distiller's grains, dried brewer's grains, malt sprouts, except as hereinafter 
provided, hominy feeds, cereal ine feeds, rice meals, dried beet refuse, oat feeds, 
corn and oat chops, corn and cob meal, ground beef or fish scraps, meat meals, 
meat and bone meals mixed, dried blood, mixed feeds, clover meals, alfalfa 
feeds and meals, compounded feeds, condimental stock and poultry foods, pro- 
prietary or trade-marked stock and poultry foods, and all other materials of a 
similar nature; but shall not include hays and straws, the whole seeds nor the 
unmixed meals, made directly fi'om the entire grains of wheat, rye, barley, 
oats, corn, buckwheat, and broom corn. Neither shall it include wheat, rye, 
and buckwheat brans or middlings, not mixed with other substances, but sold 
separately as distinct articles of commerce, nor pure grains ground together, 
nor corn meal and wheat bran mixed together, when sold as such by the manu- 
facturer at retail, nor malt sprouts, when sold as such by the maltster at retail, 
nor wheat bran and middlings mixed together not mixed with any other sub- 
stances and known in the trade as " mixed feed," nor ground or cracked bone 
not mixed with any other substance, nor shall it include poultry foods consist- 
ing of whole or whole and cracked grains mixed together, with or without 
grit, when all the ingredients may be identified by the naked eye. (As amended 
by chapter 135 of the laws of 1916.) 

This act to take effect January 1, 1917. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 4S 

Sec. ,161. State»ients to he attached to packages; contents; analysis. — No 
manufacturer, firm, association, C(u-i)oration, or person sliall sell, offer, or 
expose for sale or for distribution in this State, any concentrated commercial 
feeding stuffs used for feeding live stock unless such concentrated connnercial 
feeding stuffs shall be accompanied by or shall have affixed to each and every 
package in a conspicuous place on the outside thereof, a plainly printed state- 
ment which shall certify as follows : 

1. The net weight of the contents of the package, except in the case of malt 
sprouts sold in packages containing uneven weights. 

2. The name, brand, or trade-mark. 

3. The name and principal address of the manufacturer or person responsible 
for the placing of the commodity upon the market. 

4. Its composition expressed in the following terms : 

a. The minimum per cent of crude protein. 

b. The minimum per cent of crude fat. 

c. The minimum per cent of crude fiber, provided that the per cent of crude 
fiber may be omitted if it does not exceed 5 per cent. , ,, ir ; , , 

d. If a compounded feed, the name of each ingredient iContained therein. ■ ,: 

e. If artificially colored, the name of the material used for such purpose. : , 

f. In the case of meat products, the maximum per cent of phosphoric acid. ;i 
If any such concentrated commercial feeding stuffs be sold, offered, or 

exposed for sale in bulk, such printed statement shall accompany every car or 
lot. Any such feeding stuffs purchased in bulk and later sacked or bagged for 
purposes of sale shall have tags attached giving the information as provided 
herein before being sold, offered, or exposed for sale. Whenever any feeding 
stuffs are sold at retail in bulk or in packages belonging to the purchaser, the 
^seller upon request of the purchaser shall furnish the said purchaser the in- 
formation contained in the certified statement jirovided herein. That portion 
of the statement required by this section relating to the quality of feeding 
stuffs shall be known and recognized as the guaranteed ^alysi^, ..(As, axneuded 
t>y chapter 13.5 of the laws of 1916. ) ,',..-m''.! n,,iVi.,„Ti<r,,., Mint xll 

This act to take effect January 1, 1917. ' ' -. ' ■ . : \ 

Sec. 162. Statements to be filed with commissioner of agriculture; to be ac- 
companied by sample and affidavit when requested. — Before any manufacturer, 
firm, association, corporation, or per.son shall sell, offer or expose for sale in 
this State any concentrated connnercial feeding stuffs he or they shall for each 
and every brand of concentrated conniiercial feeding stuff file annually prior 
to January 1 of the calendar year in which such commodity is to be sold, offered 
or exposed for sale with the commissioner of agriculture a certified copy of 
the statement, with the exception of the net weight of the contents of the 
package, specified in section 161, said certified copy to be accompanied, when 
the said commissioner shall so request, by a sealed glass jar or bottle contain- 
ing at least 1 pound of the feeding stuff to be sold or offered for sale, and the 
company or person furnishing said sample shall thereupon make affidavit that 
said sample corresponds to the feeding stuff which it represents in the per 
centum of crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, name of each ingredient con- 
tained therein, if a compounded feed, and the name of any artificial coloring 
material used. (As amended by chap. 314 of the Laws of 1911.) 

Sec. 163. License fee. — Every manufacturer, importer, agent, or seller of any 
concentrated commercial feeding stuff's shall pay annually prior to January 1 
of the calendar year in which such commodity is to be sold, offered, or exposed 
for sale to the treasurer of the State of New York a license fee of .$2.5 for each 
and every brand to be sold or offered or exposed for sale. Whenever a manufac- 
turer, importer, agent, or seller of any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs 
desires at any time to sell such material and has not complied with the 
requirements of the statute he shall before selling, offering or exposing the 
same for sale, comply with the requirements as herein provided. Said treas- 
urer shall in each case at once certify to the commissioner of agriculture the 
payment of such license fee. Each manufacturer, importer, or person who has 
complied with the provisions of this article shall be entitled to receive a cer- 
tificate from the commissioner of agriculture setting forth said facts. Such 
certificate shall expire on the 31st day of December of the calendar year in 
which it was issued, but no such certificate shall be issued for the sale of a 
brand of concentrated commercial feeding stuff under a brand or trade name 
which is misleading or deceptive or which tends to mislead or deceive as to 
the constituents or materials of which it is composed. Any such certificate so 
issued may be cancelled by the commissioner of agriculture when it is shown 



44 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

that any statement upon which it was issued is false or misleading. When- 
ever the manufacturer, importer, or shipper of concentrated commercial feeding 
stufes shall have filed the statement required by section 161 of this article 
and paid the license fee as prescribed in this section, no agent or seller 
of such manufacturer, importer, or shipper shall be required to file such 
statement or pay such fee. (As amended by chap. 317 of the Laws of 1909.) 

Sec. 164. Commissioner of agriculture to take samples for analysis; anali/sis 
to be made by director of experiment station. — The commissioner "of agriculture 
shall at least once in each year transmit to the New York Agricultural Experi- 
ment Station for analysis at least one sample, to be taken in the manner herein- 
after prescribed, of the different concentrated commercial feeding stuffs sold 
or offered for sale under the provisions of this article. The said commis- 
sioner of agriculture or his duly authorized representative in taking samples 
shall take them in duplicate in the presence of at least one witness, and in 
the presence of such witness shall seal such samples and shall at the time of 
taking tender and if accepted deliver to the person apparently in charge one of 
such samples; the other sample the commissioner of agriculture shall cause 
to be analyzed. The director of said experiment station shall continue to analyze 
or cause to be analyzed such samples of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs 
taken under the provisions of this article as shall be submitted to him for 
that purpose by the commissioner of agriculture, and shall report such 
analyses to the conmiissioner of agriculture, and for this purpose the New York 
Agricultural Experiment Station may continue to employ chemists and incur 
such expenses as may be necessary to comply with the requirements of this 
article. The result of the analysis of the sample or samples so procured, 
together with such additional information as circumstances advise, shall be 
published in reports or bulletins from time to time. 

Sec. 165. Sale of adnlterated meal or ground grains. — No person shall adul- 
terate any kind of meal or ground grain or other cattle food with milling or 
manufacturing offals, or any substance whatever, for the purpose of sale, unless 
the true composition, mixture, or adulteration thereof is plainly marked or 
indicated upon the package containing the same or in which it is offerefl for 
sale. No person shall sell or offer for sale any meal or ground grain or other 
cattle food which has been so adulterated unless the true composition, mix- 
ture, or adulteration is plainly marked or indicated upon the package contain- 
ing the same, or in which it is offered for sale. (As amended by chap. 317 of 
the Laws of 1909.) 

RepresentatiA'e Lever. What further amendment do you propose to 
this section? 

Dr. Jordan. I have nothing further to suggest, so far as I have 
examined the law. 

The Chairman. Under the provision in the i-econd sentence, per- 
mitting the Secretary of Agriculture to authorize the interstate ship- 
ment of these feed stuffs where the foreign material did not detract 
from the value of the feed, would not that permit them to ship by- 
products or offal? I agree with you that those things having any 
substantial feeding value ought not to be excluded. But that second 
paragraph is a saving clause, so that no injury v?oald result. 

Dr. Jordan. Well, of course, you would be placing upon the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture a very great responsibility as to what has 
nutritive value. He Avould need the services of a biological chemist 
and a man very expert in nutrition to determine that fact. And the 
variable nature of some of these inferior products may make it quite 
difficult for the Secretary to carry out that provision. 

The Chairman. But it would not be difficult in the case of those 
that have high nutritive value. 

Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 

The Chairman. So that if he erred it would be in the exclusion 
of stuff that had very low feeding value: it would not be in the ex- 
clusion of stuff v\'ith hisfh feedino; value. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 45 

Dr. Jordan. I will call your attention to the fact, that you practi- 
cally give the Secretary of Agriculture legislative power. 

The Chairman. Well, that has become the custom here. [Laugh- 
ter.] We recognize that in the bill as it is drawn. 

Dr. Jordan. Well, of course, that is not my business. 

Senator Kenyon. This legislation, Dr. Jordan, as you understand 
it, is to prevent fraud upon the farmer in buying these compounded 
products, is it not? 

Dr. Jordan. May I change the phraseology and add : "And enable 
the farmer to know what he is buying." 

Senator Kenton. To know what he is buying. If he does not 
know what he is buying and buys something that is injurious a 
fraud has been practiceclupon him; so that it amounts to the same 
thing. Now, that kind of legislation you think is desirable? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir ; I do, to prevent fraud. 

Senator Kenyon. And the question in your mind is whether this 
umendment directly works that out ? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenyon. In other words, if the farmer wants to buy 
peanut shells, or elephant's teeth for feeding material, it is up to 
him, but he should know it? 

Dr. Jordan. He should simply know it. And I doubt whether you 
could e-^actly call a compounded feed a fraud upon the farmer when 
the ingredients are named ; not in the fullest sense. 

Senator Kenyon. Well, if he is paying for something that is use- 
less it is a fraud, is it not ? 

Dr. Jordan. But the feeds sold in New York are sold to the 
farmer — if he wishes to find out — with a full knowledge of the kinds 
of things the feed contains. 

Senator Kenyon. Regardless of whether that is an interstate 
shipment or not ? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenton. Why do you need an interstate law, then? 

Dr. Jordan. He does not Iniow the amounts, but he knows the 
kinds. And we find very few violations of the law. The feeding- 
stuff trade has very fully stated the kinds of things that go into 
their feeding stuffs. Once in a while there is a slip ; sometimes it 
might be intentional 

Senator Kenyon (interposing). So in your State he can know the 
kinds but not the amounts ? 

Dr. Jordan. Not the amounts. 

Senator Kenyon. Your law does not cover that? 

Dr. Jordan. Our law does not cover that. 

Senator Kenyon. If your law did cover that, you think the farmer 
would be amply protected, do you ? 

Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 

Senator Kenton. He would not be? 

Dr. Jordan. Unless they put inspectors in the mills; because if 
they should send a feed to the experiment station and should ask 
me and the chemists and microscopists to tell the proportions we 
would decline to do so, unless it happened to be a wheat bran, with 
corncobs, or something like that; but in the case of a molasses feed, 
for instance, it would be simply out of the question. 



46 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Senator Kenyon. So that, if they placed on the package a label 
showing just exactly the amount and what it was, you think the 
farmer would know exactlj^ what he was getting? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kenton. Why did not your law go that far? 

Dr. Jordan. Because we did not think it wise to put int^ 1^][ie lay^ 
and regulations something that we could not enforce. '.■' U -.!,,,!. -V,. 

Senator Kenton. If you can not enforce it in the State law, how 
could it be enforced under Federal law ? 

Dr. Jordan. I said it could be enforced only by inspection in the 
mills. 

The Chairman. And your State , can not handle thatj so far as 
interstate traffic is concerned? " ""'^■' 

Dr. Jordan. It could in intrastate business, but not in interstate 

traffic. ':::'• •/•)- -'■■i>l 'lo'jii)< 

' Senator Kenton. That is all I have to ask. ' \ \^t.^ '^-r ^ !, " r/rfMin 
The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact t^a't tlie farmers iiave 
had some trouble in buying from the mills in New York at an}' time ? 
Dr. Jordan. At the time of the so-called Wicks committee investi- 
tigation in the State of New York there were certain facts developed 
which indicated to that committee — I do not pretend to judge the 
facts — that there was a combination in the feeding-stuff trade which 
prevented such sales, for instance, as a farmer buying froni tiies 
manufacturer a carload of feed on a cash basis. 

The Chairman. Well, are you familiar with the alleged fact that 
the Feed Dealers' Association of New, York blacklisted mills that 
sold by-products direct to farmers? ,. ,, _ ':,.'•, . ,' 
Dr. Jordan. I am not familiar with that fact. ' ' ■ 

The Chairman. And you are not familiar with the fact that that 
Organization dissolved on account of a threatened prosecution, and 
then reorganized with the same officers and the same offices under 

another name? \ r - r/i i »/■!•-• 

Dr. Jordan. I could not assert anything in.l'fes'si.ra to inati-sir. 

I have troubles of my own. . . •>..,. ^ i,,,-; ., > y Au\v\ 

Representative L^ver. Wh^ii ' ' Ws ^tms '; it^ve^l^atioii' ' ^ that ' .fvpu 

speak of? ''' ^2,niflt t<> 3!.nr>l 'A\ Vy)M\\r. yllin tt# -cu Mpc'ry ii^T- 

Dr. Jordan. Tke Wicks committee irivesti^atioh "^gis \ 

Representative Lever. Two j-ears ago? , . .T:^ 

Dr. Jordan. Yes; and they published a very full report, which 
could be had, I suppose, of the secretary of state of New York. 

Representative Haugen. Your protection, then, is in the publicity 
given of the findings of j'our department? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir ; we send out about 45,000 copies of our feed- 
ing-stuff bulletins. ; 

Representative Haugen. And thiatgiveS a li'^t' o^'tHfe'' manufac- 
turers and dealers, does it? ' . 'vi ., , , 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir; and the iia,iIieS of the brands ;anHVthe in- 
gredients of the respective brands. 1 ' J / ' r .' ' r ' 

Representative Haugen. And that 'h^s '^iHreri y^' doilsiderable 
protection against the adulteration and the deception? 

Dr. Jordan. It has enabled the farmer to know, the kind of thing 
he is buyiiig. M any f armerS pay nd attehtioiti;i;l6'itj mahy do pa^^ 

attention. .^"•■v-,.uy.i\\ y-.-. IIK« /1m:m = .- -. InUU/. .I/.-..;.:,;:: ■!;.,. 



ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 47 

The Chairman. The point that I wanted to bring out, but failed, 
is this : The effect of blacklisting mills to which I have referred was 
to force the farmers, through this dealers' association, to buy the 
compounded feeds rather than to purchase from the mills and mix 
the stuff themselves. I think I did not make that clear before. 

Dr. Jordan. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the Dairymen's 
League instituted an effort to have the manufacturers of feeding 
stuffs sell to league members only brands made up entirely of what I 
would call standard feeds with no inferior material. >^A(iaoU :i<i 

The Chairman. What league was that? '• '"' ' ' " 

Dr. Jordan. It was the Dairymen's League through its grain pur- 
chasing agency. And the grains were recommended by Prof. Savage, 
of Cornell, and the mixtures were also recommended by him. 

The Chairman. That was on the theory that the feeds could be 
mixed without the use of those worthless materials, was it not? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir; and some of the manufacturers are mixing 
feeds without a particle of inferior material. I told the committee 
that 41 per cent of the feeds examined in 1912 had inferior mate- 
rials, and 59 per cent did not. ■ • - -: 

The Chairman. Yes. <»f^|' -i^J^ 

Dr. Jordan. And about 41 per cent of the 568 samples "received 
this year and so far examined did not have any. I see men here in 
the committee room to-day who are mixing feeds which have no in- 
ferior ingredients in them. 

The Chairman. So that that is a practicable thing? 

Dr. Jordan. That is a practicable thing. 

Representative Haugen. I understood you to say. Dr. Jordan, that 
these hulls enumerated in the amendment have no feeding value? 

Dr. Jordan. I did not mean to say that. 

Representative Haugen. I understood you to say that they were 
not worth the freight? 

Dr. Jordan. Why. as long as I had good wheat straw, I would 
not buy pure oat hulls ; I would feed the straw. 

Representative Haugen. You compare the feed value, then, with 
that of straw ; they are of more value than straw, are they not ? 

Dr. Jordan. Not when pure ; that is as good a comparison as I could 
toaike. 

ffiMnsCpEiAPiN. Mr: Chaiirman, may I ask Dr. Jordan a few ques- 
tions?'.'' '-•■' ' ' ■ 

The Chairman. What is your name, residence, and business con- 
nection? .:x!<'- ^^'^ A^'jiL /.ruALJ .-iiL 

Mr. Chai^in. Robert W. Chapin, of Chicag(i:'f'' ^'^^^ ^^-'^ ^'^ rtorjorrb 

Dr. Jordan. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Chapin came 
down to New York in 1899 to defeat our efforts to have enacted a 
feeding-stuff law, and after he got there he turned around and helped 
us to get it through, and he has been helping me ever since. ■' 

The Chairman. Whom did he go there to represent? "^^<^'' -'^^^ 

Mr. Chapin. Myself only. There was no association of m'anu- 
facturers in existence then. I was afraiel the feeding-stuff law would 
be too rigorous ; but I found that it was not. ' ■ ' ' , " ' 

The Chairman. It was a personal eccentricity of your owiiV'tHeSni?' 

Mr. Chapin.' Yes, sir; I was a small dealer in New York. 

Dr. Jordan. I think he paid his own expenses. 



48 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Chapin. May I ask you this question, Dr. Jordan : Since you 
passed your feeding-stuff law in 1899, has not the number of live 
stock, and consequently, the sale of feeds, greatly increased? 

Dr. Jordan. To answer that in a roundabout way, there has not 
been an increase in live stock at all proportionate to the increased sale 
of feeds. 

Mr. Chapin. Of all kinds? Is it not very difficult for you to de- 
termine the total tonnage of feed stuffs sold ? 

Dr. Jordan. Well, we do not know that; I ought to modify my 
answer: the number of brands sold has greatly increased. 

Mr. Chapin. Would that not lead you to believe that the farmers 
buy these mixed feed stuffs because they find them to be all right? 

Dr. Jordan. It leads me to believe that the farmers have been 
buying them because they are a little cheaper than the standard 
brands. 

Mr. Chapin. I might call your attention to the fact, in answering 
the question, that you know that we have had very little wheat mill 
feeds made in the last few months, and the country has been forced 
to go on a substitute basis. 

Dr. Jordan. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. And that means a large production of oatmeal, and 
a consequent large proportion of oat hulls. I estimate that there 
were 300,000 or 400,000 tons of oat hulls produced in the last year. 

Dr. Jordan. You have got me there: I do not know. 

Mr. Chapin. What would you suggest that we do with those oat 
hulls? 

Dr. Jordan. Sell them for what they are. 

Mr. Chapin. Does the farmer know how to buy them? 

Dr. Jordan. That is up to him. 

Mr. Chapin. Does he know how to use them? 

Dr. Jordan. He knows how to use them as well as he does any 
roughage. 

]\Ir. Chapin. It has been my experience that a dairy feed must be 
lightened up; and that the farmers could not get the stuff to do 
that without these mixed feed manufacturers. 

Dr. Jordan. I will have to differ with you there. If a dairy cow 
is eating straw and hay and silage, it may be fed concentrated 
feeds without any lightening — and I will take you to the experiment 
station farm, where they have been fed that way, with nothing to 
lighten the grain ratio. 

Mr. Chapin. Well, Dr. Jordan, as you know, this immense pro- 
duction of oat feed has got to be disposed of somewhere? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. And I think you will agree — as I took it from one of 
your textbooks — that oat hulls have approximately the same nutritive 
value as timothy hay? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes; as sold. 

Mr. Chapin. Would you consider them worth as much? 

Dr. Jordan. Timothy hay has about the same digestibility as oat 
hulls ; and timothy hay I consider has as low a nutritive value as any 
roughage. 

Mr. Chapin. How about alfalfa? Is that not about identical 
with oat feed? 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 49 

Dr. Jordan. No ; although alfalfa hay is somewhat overestimated ; 
good clover hay is just as good. 

Mr. Chapin. You are thinking of the net value in that respect? 

Dr. JoRDON. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. Would you consider the value of oat hulls anywhere 
near the value of timothy hay ? 

Dr. Jordan. Approximately, if you mean this by-product as sold. 

Mr. Chapin. Are you aware that in Chicago we are paying $31 
per ton for timothy hay, whereas the oat hulls are selling for a good 
deal less ? Would you not think that oat hulls are cheap feed in that 
part of the country ? 

Dr. Jordan. I will have to return, Mr. Chapin, to my basic propo- 
sition — and 3^ou must not try to get me away from it — that the 
farmer has a right to know what he is buying. If he wants to buy 
oat hulls, he has a right to buy them. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask you about the milk production 
of New York, Dr. Jordan. Has the milk production from cows in 
New York increased in the last few years? 

Dr. Jordan. It probably has. But if we should say that that is 
due to the sale of inferior feeds, we would make a mistake. We 
have been trying to educate the dairymen of New York to better 
methods, through the college of agriculture, through the experiment 
stations, and through better breeding. 

The Chairman. You think that accounts for the increased pro- 
duction, do you? 

Dr. Jordan. I think that accounts for the increased production^ 
very largely. 

Mr. Chapin. I w^ant to ask you as a scientist — there has been so 
much talk about ivory-nut turnings; I suppose you have read the 
reports of the tests by the experts showing that ivory nut turnings 
had a high feeding value. Will you agree with me on that proposi- 
tion? 

Dr. Jordan. I do. 

Mr. Chapin. Then it is not an adulterant in any sense of the word? 

Dr. Jordan. No, 

Mr. Chapin. Anything having the value of oats in total nutritive 
value, or total energy value, would not be an adulterant, would it? 

Dr. Jordan. That depends on how you define it. If ivory nut 
turnings were put in cottonseed meal, or were passed for cottonseed 
meal, I would call it an adulterant. 

Mr. Chapin. So would I. 

Dr. Jordan. So that your question can not be answered in single 
terms. 

Mr. Chapin. The point I want to make is that some of these feeds 
you would not consider worthless or of no value ? 

Dr. Jordan. I have said so, explicitly. 

Mr. Chapin. Have you ever found any sawdust in the feed in 
your State? 

Dr. Jordan. No. 

Mr. Chapin. You have found peanut shells? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. In what form ? 

Dr. Jordan. Ground peanut shells. 

81413—18 4 



50 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Chapin. Was that in peanut meal ? 
Dr. Jordan. No. 

Mr. Chapin. I will ask you whether, about 10 years ago, before we 
had a pure food law, I asked you to help in getting a law passed, and 

you agreed with me 

Dr. Jordan (interposing). We have even found the thin paper 
covering the coffee kernel in bran. 

Mr, Chapin. That is a gross adulteration, is it not ? 
Dr. Jordan. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. I think so ; but I have never seen such an adultera- 
tion in commerce; and I believe the pure food law forbids it, does 
it not? 

Dr. Jordan. This was made in New Jersey. [Laughter.] 
Mr. Chapin. Have you any objection in your own mind to the 
use of alfalfa meal in feeds ? 

Dr. Jordan. I have no objection to the use of alfalfa meal by the 
farmer. Of course, my judgment is — some of you who know the 
financial side of the matter will disagree with me — that alfalfa meal 
is sold for more than it ought to be, when put into compound feeds. 
My judgment is that that is true in general, that the inferior ma- 
terials finally come to bring a larger price than they should, when 
mixed with good materials. My mind is open on that question, but 
that is my present judgment. 

Mr. Chapin. Taking some of these offals named in the amend- 
ment on a purely energy basis — we are dealing with calories, say — I 
will read a list of them, with the production of each : 

The annual production in this country of oat feeds is 400,000 tons ; 
the production of screenings is 300,000 tons ; alfalfa meal, 300,000 to 
400,000 tons ; molasses, 300.000 tons ; clipped oat by-prduct, 200 tons ; 
cottonseed hulls, 968,000 tons. Those are the government figures. 
That makes a total of 2,468,000 tons of by-products. 

Now, will 3'ou not agree with me that practically all of those ma- 
terials have the same value as timothy hay, about 50 per cent of 
digestible nutrients — that is, the oat screenings and the alfalfa meal ? 
Dr. Jordan. Those things have a value, and it ought to be con- 
served. 

Mr. Chapin. And would not that 2,500,000 tons of this material 
represent in nutritive value approximately 1,000,000 tons of corn, 
just as a matter of calculation, and thereby save that amount of 
corn being used as feed ? 

Dr. Jordan. Were you ever a lawyer? 

Mr. Chapin. No; 1 am onlv a feed dealer. And would not that 
1,000,000 tons of corn be worth $50,000,000? Corn is worth $50 a 
ton. And what should we do with all these by-products? 
Dr. Jordan. Sell them to those who will use them. 
Mr. Chapin. Do you think we can get the farmer to buy them ? 
Dr. Jordan. I do not know. 

Mr. Chapin. They are buying these mixed feeds now; are they 
satisfied with them ? 

Dr. Jordan. I do not know. But that does not justify selling 
them in the way in which thev are sold. 

Mr. Chapin.' Well, do you believe that if we could not sell them 
to the farmer they would not come on the market, and we would 
have a consequent shortage of feedstuffs? 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 51 

Dr. Jordan. I believe, if you go into the economics of the situa- 
tion, that the farmers of the State of New York can take care of the 
roughage question themselves. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chapin, do you mean to say that you could 
not sell those things to farmers ? 

Mr. Chapin. Any more than I can sell the soles of shoes to farmers ; 
thev need the soles of shoes 

The Chairman (interposing). They will not buy those things? 

Mr. Chapin. No; because they are not chemists; they have not 
read Dr. Jordan's textbook. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about the organization 
of the NeAV York Feed Dealers' Association ? 

Mr. Chapin. I do not know anything about it. 

The Chairman. If the farmers could buy that; if the farmers 
should buy those things themselves, they could not mix them ? 

Mr. Chapin. They do buy it — from me. I sold three carloads at 
the State fair last week, and some of them bought feeds containing 
oat hulls; I made very little out of it; but I gave them just what 
they wanted — hominy" feed and other feed lightened up with oat 
hnils — and they said it was the finest they ever had. One of them 
was Paul T. Brady, who has the finest sort of cows. 

The Chairman. What sort did you give him? 

Mr. Chapin. Oat hulls from oat feed. 

The Chairman. Where did you get it? 

Mr. Chapin. From the oat mills. 

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. Chapin. In the West; various centers. 

The Chairman. Do vou have them shipped from the Wc^t to New 
York? 

Mr. Chapin. No; I live in Chicago; my plant is in Hammond, Ind. 

The Chair^ian. I thought it was in New York. You do not han- 
dle hulls in New York, do you ? 

INIr. Chapin. I sell a large amount of feeds in New York. 

The Chairman. I mean, you do not buy them there? 

IMr. Chapin. No; the movement is from the West to the East. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Mr. Chapin. I was going to ask Dr. Jordan what the farmers do, 
with the lack of labor and the lack of materials? Would you say 
that every feed dealer should carry on hand 30 carloads, which is the 
Government minimum? Each car is worth $2,000 a carload. Can 
every feed dealer carry $20,000 or $30,000 worth of various feeds in 
stock, so as to su]iply the man who wants to do his own mixing ? 

Dr. Jordan. I do not see what that has to do with the inferior 
ingredients ; you are mixing the questions. A lot of manufacturers 
are mixing good things. If you think the farmer must mix, let him 
mix that kind. 

Mr. Chapin. Now, you know what I am interested in. The amount 
of things I can get are limited — distillers' grains and all of those 
things are short crops this year. Now, if the farmers call for more 
feed, how am I going to give it to them ? 

The Chairman. Do you mind telling the farmer just what -he is 
buying ? 

Mr. Chapin. I do so now. 



52 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Tlae Chairman. Then, what objection have you to this? The 
Secretary of Agriculture would permit you to sliip stuff if it is not 
injurious or worthless. 

Mr. Chapin. I will tell you. In the first place, the form would 
have to be changed. I have a transcript of Dr. Jordan's report for 
1913, showing the variations in all feeds 

The Chairman (interposing). When they vary and become worth- 
less, do you not think they ought to be excluded ? 

Mr. Chapin. No; this variation is perfectly normal, and Dr. 
Jordan will bear me out in that. 

The Chairman. You do not understand my question. I am re- 
ferring to worthless stuff, the stuff that the farmer either has or does 
not want. 

Mr. Chapin. I do not know of any worthless stuff raised on the 
farm, or any worthless stuff used in the feed business. 

The Chairman. Then, this amendment would not interfere with 
you at all ? 

Mr, Chapin. I will tell you why it will. Because, according to 
the Avay the amendment is Avorded now, I can not use anything: 
everything I use is derived from grain. That provision does not saj^ 
anything about the stuff being worthless or valueless. It sa3^s if I 
use these things I am violating the law; if I mix oats and corn I 
am violating the law; the standard of corn is so many units of 
protein. Now, from another point of view, oats has a higher pro- 
tein value than corn. Now, which is right? 

The Chairman. I think you are putting up scarecrows. 

Mr. Chapin. We have good reason to be afraid of laws that we 
can not understand. We do not know where they lead us to, or 
what effect they will have. I know what will happen to my business 
if all of these products are put off the market, or if the sale or manu- 
facture of them is restricted. It will put the price of things I have 
to buy up to a point where I can not use them. That is where I am 
concerned. 

Because these things are the only things that have held down the 
price of feeds. I saw in the Dairymen's News an article stating that 
there was a shortage or shrinkage of 1,000,000 tons of hay in New 
York. And here are 000,000 tons of oat feeds that will not begin to 
make up the shortage in New York State. And every other feed 
crop in New York was reported to be inferior. Now, do not say 
that the farmer has enough roughage; I can not believe it. The 
farmer is not going to chop up hay to mix with his feed. 

Dr. Jordan. It is not necessary. 

Mr. Chapin, I can not sell the farmer heavy materials; he always 
insists on having a bulky and light feed ; that has been my experience 
for many years. 

Dr. Jordan. Let me interrupt you there. I am a Maine man 
originally. There are comparatively few of these things sold in the 
State of Maine. Largely all that are sold there are the heavy feeds. 
They buy them and use them, and have done it for years. 

Mr. Chapin. I beg to differ with you, because I sell a great deal 
of feed in the State of Maine. And I know the kinds I buy are 
very bulky; and they are what the farmers buy. But there is a 
great deal of feed sold there — of the stock feed that is sold for 
growing stock, a combination of hominy and oat feed. 



ADULTEEATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 53 

Dr. Jordan. As I say, there is a very small proportion of oat feed 
sold in the State of Maine. The farmers are buying very much less 
than in the State of New York; and they are not coming to grief by 
it either. 

The Chairman. Are there an}^ other questions? 

Mr. Chapin. I want to ask Dr. Jordan one more question: He 
said that oat hulls were about 31 per cent digestible. 

Dr. Jordan. I said mostly hulls. 

Mr. Chapin. Well, this bulletin of Cornell University, which is a 
copy of Dr. Henry's report, shows that oat hulls have total nutritives 
of 50.1 per cent. Xow, as they only carry 1.3 per cent digestible fat, 
which would be about 3 per cent of the nutrients, that would mean 
that the sum total of digestible nutrients in oat hulls was 48 per 
cent, excluding fat, multiplied by 2|. 

Dr. Jordan. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. Now, that is more than 31 per cent. 

Dr. Jordan. When I gave that figure, I said mostly hulls. 

Mr. Chapin. This says " oat hulls." 

Dr. Jordan. But hulls means the general mixture of offal, includ- 
ing oat bran. 

Mr. Chapin. Noav. you are aware that there is no such thing as 
bran in it; so that there are about 50 nutrients in oat hulls, as com- 
pared with 80 in corn? 

Dr. Jordan. I stated to the committee that the}^ are used for ma- 
terial ■ 

Mr. Chapin (interposing). Would you say that oat feed, or oat 
hulls, has a total nutritive value of 50 to one of TO for oats — that that 
somewhere nearly expresses the ratio of their values? 

Dr. Jordan. No. 

Mr. Chapin. Would you place them on a net energy value ? 

Dr. Jordan. I would place them on a net energy value. 

Mr. Chapin. Would you say that they were worth half on a net 
energy value? 

Dr. Jordan. Perhaps so. 

Mr. Chapin. In other words, if oats are worth $41 a ton in 
Chicago, would oat hulls be worth $24? 

Dr. Jordan. Not for me if I had a farm. 

Mr. Chapin. Could they not be used in that way ? 

Dr. Jordan. Not on a farm, if they used their own roughage. I 
disagree with you in the statement that the farmers in the State of 
New York producing milk have to buy so much hay. Most of them 
are using their own roughage. 

Mr. Chapin. Do you consider oat hulls injurious when they are 
oats themselves? That is an economic question with me. I do not 
care about my personal interest. I am thinking about the effect on 
the whole country. And I do not want to see all of this food ma- 
terial ■ 

Dr. Jordan. Neither do I. 

Mr. Chapin. I do not want to see anything done that will throw 
the whole industry into confusion in the dead of winter, when we 
can not get any feed. 

Dr. Jordan. I agree with you there. I stated that. 

Mr. Staff. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. What is vour name and business connection? 



64 ADULTERATION OP MIX^D FEEDS. 

Mr. Staff. My name is Charles Staff, and I represent the Lar- 
roAve Milling Co., of Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. All right ; you may ask him a question. 

Mr. Staff. I want to ask you. Dr. Jordan, whether you consider 
it necessary, in protecting the farmer against the use of these low- 
grade feecls, to require the percentage of all the constituents in 
that compounded feed to be given, or do you think it is sufficient to re- 
quire only the percentage of such feeds as are labeled as inferior? 
This law or amendment provides that if any ingredients of inferior 
quality are mixed in a shipment of feed, the percentage of all of the 
ingredients shall be stated. Therefore, if 10 per cent of the inferior 
qualities are used in a feed, the percentage of the other 90 per cent 
of the feed must be declared. Do you think that at all necessary ? 

Dr. Jordan. It seems to me that if the percentage of inferior ma- 
terial is stated that would answer all purposes. 

Mr. Chapix. That is a point that had not been brought out. 

Representative Lever. Let me ask you just one question. As chair- 
man of the House Committee on Agriculture I have received quite 
a number of protests on the proposition of selling mixed feed, and 
I was just wondering if there is any great protest on the part of the 
farmers of New York on that kind of stuff that they are buying? 

Dr. Jordan. I am not aware whether there is much protest or 
commendation. I don't think the farmers of New York understand 
the situation very well now, considering the short time it has been up. 

The Chairman. In that connection I will file in the hearing be- 
fore it is finished a letter which I have received from Mr. Campbell, 
of the National Milk Producers Federation, comprising 200,000 mem- 
bers. He has very strongly indorsed this amendment and is very 
anxious for it to jpass. I also have a telegram from the National 
State Grange of New York, signed by other agricultural associations, 
very strongly indorsing the adoption of the amendment. 

Mr. Chapin, these oatmeal factories, turning out all these oat 
hulls that you have so much in mind, who owns those oatmeal fac- 
tories ? 

Mr. Chapin. They are oAvned by various companies, all in competi- 
tion with each other. We buy from all of them. 

The Chairman. Now, the one at Buffalo, who owns that? 

Mr. Chapin. The H-0 Co. 

The Chairman. Who is that? 

Mr. Chapin. That is an independent corporation owned by people 
that I know in Buffalo. 

The Chairman. The Armour people don't control that? 

Mr. Chapin. They do not. 

The Chairman. Do they control any of these? 

Mr. Chapin. I think tliey have a mill of their own at Milwaukee, 
and I think they own one at Buffalo, 

The Chairman. Does Swift & Co. own any? 

Mr. Chapin. They do not; not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of the American Feed Manu- 
facturers' Association ? 

Mr. Chapin. I am. 

The Chairman. Could you furnish us with a list of the directors of 
that association? 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 55 

Mr. Chapin. I will ask the secretary to do that. I know he will be 
pleased to comply. 

(The list referred to follows:) 

American Feed Manufacturees' Association. 

officers. 

Harold A. Abbott, president, The Albert Dickinson Co., Chicago, 111. 

F. A. McLellan, first vice president. The H-0 Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 

Charles A. Krause, second vice president, Chas. A. Krause Milling Co., Mil- 
waukee, Wis. 

J. B. Edgar, third vice president, Edgar-Morgan Co., Memphis, Tenn. 

li. F. Brown, secretary, Milwaukee, Wis. 

W. R. Anderson, treasurer, Flour <& Feed, Milwaukee, Wis. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 

G. A. Chapman, chairman, formerly of The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago, 111. 
H. G. Atwood, American Milling Co., Peoria, 111. 

R. W. Chapin, Chapin & Co., Chicago, 111. 

Sherman T. Edwards, Hales & Edwards Co., Chicago, 111. 

O. E. M. Keller, Arcady Farms Milling Co., Chicago, 111. 

F. A. McLellan, The H-0 Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 

The president, ex officio. 

NATIONAL COUNCILLOR, CHAMBER OF COAIMERf E OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

James H. Genung, American Hominy Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 

John C. Reid, chairman, The Corno Mills Co., St. Louis, Mo. 

M. C. Peters, vice chairman, M. C. Peters Mill Co., Omaha, Nebr, 

J. W. Anderson, Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co., Kansas City, Mo. 

Dwight E. Hamlin. 'Dwight E. Hamlin, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

H. C. .Joehnk, Champion Feed Milling Co., Lyons, Iowa. 

F. J. Ludwig, Chas. M. Cox Co., Boston, Mass. 

Maxwell M. Nowak. Nowak Milling Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. 

P. R. Park, The Park & Pollard Co., Boston, Mass. 

W. A. Reynolds, The Southern Cotton Oil Co.. Charlotte, N. C. 

A. F. Seay. Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis. Mo. 

F. R. Slauson, American Linseed Co., New York, N. Y. 

C. U. Snyder, C. U. Snyder & Co., Chicago, 111. 

R. P. AValden, Corn Products Refining Co., New York, N. Y. 

II. Wehman, International Sugar Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 

F. M. Wilson, The Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co., Lamar, Colo. 

The president, ex officio. 

The Chairman. Now, the Armour Co. has a member on the board, 
hasn't it, the board of directors ? 

Mr. Chapin. I don't know whether they have or not. They have 
only joined lately. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ferguson, representing the Swift people? 

Mr. Chapin. I have never seen anybody attending our member- 
ship representing Swift & Co., but they have no representation on 
our board or executive committee or anything else. They have no 
control over it. 

Dr. Jordan. Is that all, Senator? 

The Chairman. Yes; that is all. 

Representative Haugen. Just one question. Doctor, do you con- 
sider clover and alfalfa the same class of feed ? 



56 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Dr. Jordan, Practically so; yes. 

Representative Haugen. How does that compare with corn, for 
instance, for feeding cattle, either clover or alfalfa? 

Dr. Jordan. With corn grain? 

Representative Haugen. Yes. 

Dr. Jordan. Oh, about as 51 or 52 per cent is to 85 to 87 per 
cent. 

RepresentatiA^e Haugen. Does the grinding of alfalfa or clover add 
anything to its value? 

i3r. Jordan. Not in my opinion. 

Representative Haugen. What is the object of grinding it? 

Dr. Jordan. I was told by a commercial man that it is ground 
partly because they like it for mixing in the compounded feed, and 
partly because they can transport so much more in a car that it 
lowers the freight rate. I have been told that but I do not know that 
from my own knowledge. 

Representative Haugen. It is compressed by grinding? 

Dr. Jordan. Yes ; they get more room in that way. 

The Chairman. I think I will have the letter of Mr. Campbell 
read at this time. 

(The clerk read the letter as follows:) 

THE NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION. 

Washington, September 15, 1918. 
Hon. Thomas P. Gore, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator: I am writing to express the sentiment of the directors, the 
executive committee, and other representatives of the Naional Milli Producers' 
Federation present and holding a meeting of the federation in this city yester- 
day, upon the amendment offered by you to the agricultural bill now pend- 
ing. 

The mixed-feed problem is one that has sorely afflicted the milk producers 
of the country for some years as evidenced by the attempts to regulate the 
same in the States. 

These attempts have proven abortive because of the immunity afforded by 
State lines, and the ease by which the contents could be put over upon the un- 
wary farmer unable to make an analysis. 

The entire membership officially represented yesterday expressed the hope 
that the bill would become a law. It is quite possible that the bill may not be 
perfect, but we are satisfied that enougli good and wholesome feed can be had 
under the terms of the bill to offset a hundred items over any waste of good 
food sacrificed. 

Nor need tliere be any sacrifice under the terms of the law of any useful 
feed or material. 

The frauds and deception that have been practiced under the existing rules 
and State laws have afforded the farmer but little protection. 

This has not come from lack of purpose, but from the immunity of State lines 
and the ease by which the manufacturer could cover his worthless material and 
sell it at fabulous prices. 
Very truly, yours, 

MiLO D. Campbell, 
President National Milk Producers' Federation. 

p. s. — The National Milk Producers' Federation is the only association of its 
kind in the United States. It has about 200,000 members, and is rapidly grow- 
ing. 

It comprises the local and State associations of New England, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and on to the coast, with California, 
Oregon, and Washington. 

The Chairman. Now, we will hear Mr. White. State your name 
and post-office address, Mr. White. 



ADULTERATTOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 57 

STATEMENT OF C. R. WHITE, DEPARTMENT OF FARMS AND 
MANAGEMENT, ALBANY, N. Y. 

Mr. White. My name is C. E. White, and I represent the depart- 
ment of farms and management, Albany, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. White, you have been present at the 
hearing this morning, and I wish you would go ahead and state any- 
thing that occurs to you touching the necessity of this amendment, or 
the evils intended to be cured, and whether or not it is adapted to 
that end. Make any suggestions that you see fit. 

Mr. White. It is our position that this amendment should be 
passed substantially as it stands. I think Dr. Jordan pointed out 
one or two places where it could be improved. It is our contention 
in New York, and the contention of the State food commission there, 
that the farmers should have the right, and do have the right, to 
know what they are buying. 

The statement has been made here that there were large amounts 
of screenings and offal, and so forth, from the mills and elevators of 
the West which receive a market. We have no objection to that, but 
we do claim that they have no right to unload those articles of low 
value on to the farmers of our State without their knowing what it 
is. The statement was made here, and practically correctly, I think, 
that those were variable qualities — 'which is probably true — that 
when those screenings were introduced into these products we don't 
know what the fault is. We do know that we have taken samples 
from the State of New York — and I suppose they will be here to- 
day — of screenings from cars — in fact, broke the seal to get them, 
because they were full carloads of screenings — that are practically 
worthless, or very inferior. 

The Chairman. You have got those samples here? 

Mr. White. No; I suppose they will be here. Mr. Loomis, of the 
State food commission, whom I expected to be here, will have those 
samples of feeds, or the low-grade materials. I w^ill say this, that 
in mill-run bran, which we allow tp come into the State of New 
York — that is, bran containing mill-run screenings — I have seen 
bran which had screenings of such a low character that the taste 
and smell were such that the animals would not eat the bran at all. 
It had to be incorporated in small quantities in mixed feeds before 
the stock will use it. 

I will say this, that for the last eight years I have worked with 
the farmers over the entire State of New York. I have held insti- 
tutes and have conducted institutes for them and worked with the 
college of agriculture in extension school work, and I never yet have 
heard a single case where a farmer desired to buy hulls or anything 
of the kind. I have heard repeated protests to the fact that they 
were obliged to buy them and didn't want them. 

Representative Lever. Why did they buy them ? 

Mr. White. Why did they buy them? They can't help them- 
selves. They buy them in mixed feeds. The greater profit on mixed 
feed enters into it. There is a little history that might be brought 
out here on that. In many cases where the Dairy Men's League 
asked or made arrangements with local feed dealers to handle dairy- 
men's feed and the dairymen went there to get it; it was impossi- 
ble to get it and they had to take the feed offered them. That is a 



58 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

well-known fact, and any of the Dairy Men's League people will tell 
you that. 

Representative Lever, Mr. Chapin brought out a point there that 
I think is of value to this committee. Why don't these farmers mix 
their own feed ? 

Mr. White. The farmers do ; a great many of them mix their feed. 

Representative Lever. Why don't they all do it ? 

Mr. White. Because in many cases they can't get the material. 
There are sections of the State where the different materials which 
should enter into stock feeds are not available as separate materials. 

Representative Lever. Which makes it necessary for the sale of 
mixed feeds? 

Mr. White, Yes; in those particular instances. Not all over the 
State, however. There are sections of the State where the several 
constituents, such as cottonseed meal, linseed meal, and so forth, can 
be bought. 

The Chairman. Aren't the grange organizations of New York 
making an effort to distribute standard feeds or mixed feeds that 
have really feeding ingredients ? 

Mr. White. There is such an institution, and I think Prof. Wing 
can answer that question. He is president of it and I should prefer 
that he answer any questions in relation to that. 

The Chairman. That is an effort to escape from the adulterated 
feeds. 

Mr. White. That is true. 

The Chairman. Have you got a law in New York against the sale 
of adulterated feeds? 

Mr, AVhite, We have. 

The Chairman, Have you changed it several times? 

Mr. White. There has been no change made since I have been con- 
nected with the department. 

The Chairman, Did you have to pass a law prohibiting the adul- 
terating of feed? 

Mr. White. It seems so. 

The Chairman. Couldn't you trust the feed manufacturers to sell 
pure feeds? 

Mr. White. I should hardly think so. 

The Chairman, How many States have laws prohibiting the sale 
of adulterated feeds? 

Mr. White. I am not prepared to answer that question. I don't 
know how many. 

The Chairman, It seems to me there are 42 or more. Of course 
you don't know why that was, whether the feed manufacturer was 
trying to sell too high value food or not, but it is true that in a great 
many States State legislatures have passed laws to try to prohibit the 
adulterating of feed. 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any reason for that, any theory 
upon which this legislation was enacted, except that the feed manu- 
facturers couldn't be trusted unregulated by law to sell pure feed? 

Mr. White. It is the natural assumption that where a measure 
was enacted there must have been some need for the measure or it 
would not have been enacted. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 59 

Kepresentative Lever. Each State has a statute against murder, 
too. on the same theory I guess. 

Mr. White. I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, that the ques- 
tion has been raised of the unenforcibility of any measure that 
might be passed. I think it is hardly conceivable that such an ob- 
jection could be raised; that if we had any crime that was being 
committed, such as burglary or counterfeiting or anything, that if 
we couldn't get all of those that were engaged in it we shouldn't 
enact a law prohibiting it. , 

Representative Lever. Senator Gore's reasoning was so seductive 
that I felt I ought to throw a wrench into the machinery — that we 
can't trust people not to commit murder and we ought to prohibit 
the adulteration of feed because we can't trust the feed manufac- 
turers. 

But I don't think there is any difference between the House con- 
ferees and the Senate conferees on the proposition of trying to get 
a law here which will work. What we want is for you to tell us 
first, is there a reason for any additional legislation; second, is this 
proposition a workable proposition, and if not, third, have we got a 
workable proposition that we can pass at this time? I think that 
sizes up the situation. 

Mr. Ward. Senator, may we ask the witness a question? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Ward. Mr. White, have you made any study or observation 
as to the increasing death rate for the past two years among dairy 
herds in the State of New York? 

Mr. White. I have not directly. I have heard a number of state- 
ments made within the last few weeks that there was an increasing 
death rate in the cattle of the State. 

Mr. Ward. And in the spring particularly, after the winter period ? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ward. And that is the period when these mixed grains have 
been very largely fed? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ward. And have you given any study to the fact that Cockrell 
bran and other screening brans containing poisonous alkaloids and 
oils have been sold? 

Mr. White. I have not. I am not a scientist. 

Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, wouldn't they be prohibited 
under the pure-food law from shipping in interstate commerce such 
feeds as you mentioned last? 

Mr. Ward. So far there is no law that has tended to decrease the 
feeding of these stuffs, or the selling of them to the farmers. Every 
law is evaded in one way or another. 

Representative Lever. I am asking for information. This is all a 
brand new field to me. You say you have been connected with the 
department of agriculture of New York for eight years? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Representative Lever. And you have been holding institutes over 
the country? 

Mr. White. Over the State; yes, sir. 

Representative Lever. And the farmers have been complaining 
about this mixed-feed proposition ? 



60 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Representative Lever. For how many years? 

Mr. White. Ever since I have been in the field. 

Representative Lever. Have you made any protest down here to 
Washington before this time? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. Why not? 

Mr. White. Because I was connected with the State department. 
It -vyasn't particularly my duty. 

Representative Lever. Wouldn't that be the very reason why you 
should do it? 

Mr. White. I presume it would. 

Representative Haugen. This is the first opportunity you have 
had, isn't it? 

Mr. White. The first opportunity ; yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. What is your official position? 

Mr. White. I am here representing Dr. Porter, of the department 
of foods and markets, who has charge of the seed investigation of the 
State food commission. 

Mr. Chapix. May I ask Mr. White a question? 

The Chairman. Yps. 

Mr. Chapix. Mr. White, do you know of any specific case where a 
cow died because of something she was fed ? 

Mr. White. No ; I said I didn't know specifically. That has been 
the report that I have heard. 

Mr. Chapix. Do you know that when cows are fed improperly 
any kind of feed, too large an amount or too concentrated, it is liable 
to make them sick and cause them to die? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chapix. It can be done with cottonseed meal, can't it ? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Chapix. And gluten feed? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chapix. Do you know that a large number of cattle in New 
York — you must know it in your work and in your study — are fed 
nothing but gluten feed or cotton seed? 

Mr. White. That is very unfair, Mr. Chapin. You musn't assume 
that the farmers don't know anything about feeding. There may be 
rare cases Avhere that is so. 

Mr. Chapix. I happen to know of my OAvn knowledge of such 
cases, having lived in the State 25 years. 

Mr. White. Such cases are very rare indeed. 

Mr. Chapin. Now, what you said about farmers buying mixed 
feed because they had to — you think that is actuallj^ so. tliat they 
could buy nothing but mixed feed? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chapix. What would that indicate? 

Mr. White. An inadequate supply of concentrates; that the sup- 
ply of concentrates in some sections of the State was inadequate; 
that they couldn't get these concentrates to make up their feeds. 

Mr. Chapix. Do you know what concentrates were particularly 
lacking — bran ? 

Mr. White. No ; I have known times when they didn't carry cot- 
tonseed meal. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 61 

Mr. Chapin. Was it that this last winter particularly ? 

Mr. White. It has been for several years. 

Mr. Chapin. Don't you know that this last winter we had a terri- 
l>le blockade, and hard'ly anything could get through into New York 
State? 

Mr. White. That is a connnon condition that exists at some ponits 

all the time. 

Mr. Chapin. Wasn't it better for them to get mixed feeds than to 
have the cattle starve? 

Mr. White. Yes ; there is no doubt about that. 

Mr. Chapin. Did they complain about that? Did these same 
farmers go on buying mixed feeds? Are they buying them now ? 

Mr. White. Very likely. 

Mr. Chapin. Then they must like them, don't they? 

Mr. White. They may or may not. If a nian went to the station 
10 inquire for Dairy Men's League feed which was formulated by Dr. 
Savage, and he couldn't get anything else he would have to take whai 
he could get. and that was the case last winter. 

Mr. Chapin. Do you think that all the cows in New York State 
<.'an be fed on the Dairy Men's League feed? 

Mr. White. I don't know about that. I think they ought to be 
fed on an equally good formula. 

Mr. Chapin. Do you know that there are a million and a half 
cows in New York State that don't eat approximately a ton a year 
of Dairy Men's feed ? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Chapin. Do you know^ that the whole production of brewers 
grain of Dairy Men's feed for farmers — I don't know whether it 
calls for distillers' grain, but it calls for malt products — do you know 
that there is not a sufficient supply of concentrates to provide a 
million and a half tons of dairy feed to the Dairy Men's League? 

Mr. White. That may be so. 

The Chair;man. I think he made one pertinent statement, Mr. 
Chapin. that if they couldn't feed in accordance with that formula 
they ought to feed^ in accordance with some other good formula. 
That is what we are driving at. 

Mr. White. We are not particular as to the exact formula, just 
so it is a good formula. 

The Chairman. Still there is no justification for the sale of worth- 
less stuff. 

Mr. Chapin. Don't you know that at the present time there is 
practically no bran at all in the country ? 

Mr. White. We are aware of the fact that in New York we can't 
get it. 

Mr. Chapin. Don't you know that for the past six months we have 
been selling substitutes and have had no wheat bran? 

The Chairman. Right there, what substitutes have 3^011 been 
using ? 

Mr. Chapin. Oatmeal and cornmeal. They have been milling 
very little wheat relatively in the last six months. Many mills have 
had to shut doAvn for two months. Bran is one of the staple feeds 
in this country, and by the milling regulations has been cut down 
500,000 tons. 



62 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chapin, are you trying to make the point that 
there isn't enough f eeclstuffs to feed the cattle in the country ? 

Mr. Chapin. I mean not enough to provide the kind of rations 
they want. There is a particular shortage in bran. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that in order to maintain cattle and 
live stock we have got to feed stuff that is no account in order to 
keep them up? 

Mr. Chapin. We have got to feed everything we have got. 

The Chairman. Whether it is worthless or not ? 

Mr. Chapin. Whether it is worthless or not — I wouldn't say 
" Avorthless," because you can't feed anything that is worthless. You 
might as well feed air. 

The Chairman. That is just the point I am making. There are 
a great many feeds that have more or less feeding value and ought 
to be sold on their merits, but that they are not is what we are driv- 
ing at. Your position would seem to lead to the conclusion that 
there is not enough nutritious food to feed the stock in the country, 
and therefore we have got to feed unnutritious stuff to thom in order 
to maintain them, and that manufacturers of feed ought to have the 
right to sell unnutritious foods to farmers because this manufacturer 
can't furnish nutritious stuff. Your reasoning is aside from the 
mark. 

Mr. Chapin. The point I wanted to make was that a certain 
amount of substitutes is necessary, just as in war bread Ave have to 
incorporate a certain amount of cattle feed. That is where it is 
going to. We have to eat cattle feed because it is used in flour, and 
in our dairy ration Ave haA^e got to incorporate a certain amount of 
roughage. We may feed a little more grain or Ave may feed a little 
less, just so Ave get the same production of milk. The production of 
milk is only the question of giving the cow a certain amount of food 
pounds per day. 

The Chairman. Will you admit that nothing ought to be put into 
food that detracts materially from its value? 

Mr. Chapin. Why, Ave can't make the ration without detracting 
from the value. Bran detracts from the value of cottonseed meal 
and corn meal. Bran has only about fiA'e-eighths the value of corn 
meal. 

The Chairman. Is it your contention that the poorest possible 
feedstuffs should be alloAved to be sold at the high feed value merely 
because there isn't enough of the high feed value to go around? 

Mr. Chapin. Feeding animals is just a question of calories. The 
German Nation has figured out that a man must have 1,500 calories 
a day or die, and a cow must haA^e so many calories of feed, and 
it doesn't make any difference where they originate, if they are not 
obnoxious or repulsive or deleterious. It is all the same to the coav 
whether she gets a certain amount of calories out of oat hulls or 
whether she gets it out of corn meal, but the ration must be so that 
she Avill like it and eat it. 

The Chairman. Is it all the same to the feed manufacturer if he 
sells to the farmer so that the farmer knows what he buys? 

Mr. Chapin. I think the farmer knows what he buys, or he 
Avouldn't buy it. The farmer don't have to buy any feeds unless he 
wants them. He can try them first and if he likes them he Avill buy 
them or otherAvise discard them forever. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 63 

The Chairman. Of course, they don't have to buy anything. They 
can let the cattle die. 

Mr. Chapin. They buy of their own free will. 

Eepresentative Haugen. You say that there is a shortage of bran. 
Can you give the figures on that ? 

Mr. Chapin. There is a shortage on the milling schedule, a short- 
age of bran of over 500,000 tons, due to the fact that the factories 
have not been able to get any bran for about six months. 

Eej^resentative Haugen. Why haven't they been able to get any 
bran ? 

Mr. Chapin. Because the farm mills can't sell their flour to-day 
because nobody will buy their flour, because the price is fixed just 
like the price of a street car ticket, and why should they buy those 
things ahead ? The mills are losing money hand over fist. They have 
got their warehouses full of flour and nobody will buy their flour. 

Representative Haugen. The Federal Trade Commission reports the 
grinding of 550,000,000 barrels of flour in the last three years; that 
they are operating at a profit of 175 per cent, an increase of 100 per 
cent on their capital stock, and why make the statement that they are 
losing money ? 

Mr. Chapin. Because I know what I say is true. They will lose 
this year what they made last year. I am not a flour miller myself. 

Eepresentative Haugen. I don't think such a misleading statement 
as that should go into the record. I am quoting figures from the 
Federal Trade Commission's report. 

The Chairman. Have you got the figures there? 

Eepresentative Haugen. I gave the figures. The increase in profits 
over operating expense was 175 per cent, 100 per cent on the capital. 

Mr. Chapin. May I call your attention to the fact that there is 
no connection between the profits and prices and the available supply 
of materials? Unless the flour mill runs they don't produce any feed. 
The profits don't have anything to do with that, and they are ex- 
porting wheat now instead of milling it. 

Eepresentative Haugen. We are now grinding more flour than ever 
before, and we have more bran than ever before. Now, the question 
is : Is there a shortage of bran or is there a monopoly in this country? 

Mr. Chapin. There is no monopoly of bran. I can't find it if 
there is. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Are the mills selling bran or are they 
monopolizing it ? 

Mr. Chapin. I went up to Buffalo and interrogated the millers up 
there about this situation, and one of them said he couldn't run 
because he had a warehouse full of flour. Another said he could 
hardly sell any flour, but could sell all the feed as fast as it was made. 
He only sold in the ordinary channels of trade, a little at a time, so 
as to make it go as far as possible. I know they are not milling flour. 

The Chairman. Not doing what ? 

Mr. Chapin. Not milling flour, because they can't sell the flour. 

Eepresentative Haugen. They have been commandeering wheat, 
going out to the farmers and bringing the wheat into the market and 
sending it to the mill and grinding it all the time. 

Mr. Chapin. Well, I believe I know the situation, and have plenty 
of gentlemen here that know that that is correct. At the present 



64 • ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

time there is very little feed being produced, not half as much as 
should be. I know I can't buy any. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask a question about the Federal 
Trade Commission and its report on the flour situation. I was 
reading a report yesterday, and I think in 1911, 1912, and 1913 their 
average earnings per barrel were 13 cents; in 1917 52 cents, and 
this year a large percentage of them were earning from 25 to 40 
cents a barrel. In 1914, I think it was, the net earnings on capital 
invested was 8.9 per cent on the part of the millers, and that this 
last 3'ear it was as high as 37 and 38 per cent, an increase of over 
300 per cent; and they stated that even this year the earnings of the 
mills, speaking by and large, Avere fabulous, much more than during 
peace times. 

Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, I was quoting from the 
report of last April, made by the Federal Trade Commission. 

Mr. Ward. Senator, may I be permitted to suggest that all these 
analyses of these feeds, showing the inferior and poor material, were 
made in the prewar period, upon which these gentlemen from the 
agricultural colleges have made their reports, so that there was no 
absence of bran then that required the combination of these feeds 
with all this worthless stuff. 

Representative Haugen. May I ask another question? I inferred 
from what you said that the pure, unadulterated products are not 
available; that there is a monopoly of them. Can any pure cotton- 
seed meal be purchased? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. Is that available to all manufacturers? 

Mr. White. I don't know. So far as I know it is. 

Representative Haugen. I understood you a short time ago that 
the pure meal could not be had. 

Mr. White. In some sections it can not be procured. The dealers 
don't carry it. 

Representative Haugen, Why don't they carry it? 

Mr. White. That I can not tell. I presume because thej^ prefer 
to handle mixed feed, just as they refuse to carry, or did not carry in 
quantities sufficient, Dairy Men's League feed when it could have 
been gotten. 

Representative Haugen. Have you made any investigation as to 
who owns and operates the manufacture of these mixecl-food prod- 
ucts? Do they have a monopoly on cotton seed? 

Mr. White. Why, no, sir. 

Representative Haugen. Have the packers any connection with 
/he manufacture of cottonseed meal? 

Mr. White. I don't know about that. 

Representative Haugen. I understand that the packers own these 
cottonseed crushers that manufacture cottonseed meal, and that they 
own it and control it and have a monopoly on cottonseed meal. 

Mr. White, That is the rumor, but I know nothing about it my- 
self. I have no personal laiowledge of it. Our main contention is 
exactly as Dr. Jordan has stated, that we believe the farmers in our 
State have a right to know what they are buying. 

The statement was made here that we have no scientific men among 
our farmers who are capable of mixing feed. We have simply hun- 
dreds find hundreds of college graduates scattered over the State of 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 65 

New York connected with the dairy establishments who can com- 
pound a feed as well as any man here. They are not ignorant of the 
compounding of feed. Our institutions there have been turning out 
men by the hundreds and they are capable of doing it, and they are 
living on farms. It has been brought out through our agricultural 
schools, our extension work, until it isn't necessary that they should 
have this stuff mixed. I want to emphasize two things here : First, 
that the farmer knows enough to know what he is buying ; and then 
I want to contradict the statement made that he isn't capable of 
deciding beween different kinds of feed and compounding them. 

Representative Haugen. Then you say that the pure feeds are 
more desirable, but they can't be obtained? 

Mr. White. Either pure feeds or mixed feeds which are made up 
from pure materials. Oat hulls, which have practically the same 
value as straw, are not needed in very much of the State of New 
York, because we have hundreds of thousands of tons of oats and 
barley and wheat straw. 

Representative Haugen. But I understood you to say that that is 
not the effect that is desirable? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

Representative Haugen. That the other is more desirable. Now, 
why are they not getting more desirable feed? 

Mr. White. That we cannot tell, because we can not get it. I do 
know this, that millers in the West are asking the feed dealers when- 
ever they try to buy bran or any other wheat feed to take anywhere 
from 40 to 60 per cent gross weight of the car in hulls. Whether 
there is a combination or whether it is because there is so much 
flour I am not prepared to say. I know it is the condition. 

Mr. Abbott. May I ask Mr. White a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Abbott. You spoke a minute ago of the fact that pure cotton- 
seed meal could be secured ? 

Mr. White. Standard cottonseed meal. 

Mr. Abbott. Do you know what pure cottonseed meal is ? 

Mr. White. I would say standard cottonseed meal. 

Mr. Abbott. You used the term " pure cottonseed meal." Do you 
know, as a matter of fact, whether cottonseed meal contains the hull 
in some form of the cotton seed ? 

Mr. White. I suppose it does; yes; as do all processes of milling 
get some of the product of the offal in them, the same as middlings 
would have, as buckwheat would have, but a very slight amount: 
But that is a purely technical question. 

The Chairman. That would not detract materially from the feed 
value ? 

Mr. White. Not materially. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of you before 
Mr. White proceeds ? 

The Chairman. You want to ask me a question ? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. It strikes me that there would be more 
clarity in the minds of all of us if you would tell us what is meant 
by waste material and worthless material, as frequently used in 
statements that have been made in this hearing. 

81413—18 5 



66 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The Chairmax. Well, the definition that J would give would be 
that waste material — it is pretty hard to define waste. It carries 
its own definition about as well as anything else. It is stuff that 
is of no value. Worthless material is stuff that is not worth — that 
has no feed value and ought not to be mixed with the feed. And I 
will go further than that. I wouldn't be as strict as that. The 
farmers, as Mr. White stated, all have a great deal of this rough- 
age — or the farmers of ^fjTew York have — and I don't think they 
want to buy from you, Mr. Ablxott, stuff that they have already got, 
anl I don't think the stuff ought to be mixed so that they can't get 
what they Avant without buying what they don't want and without 
buying what they don't need and without buying what they have got 
on their farms. That is what I mean. 

Mr. Abbott. Do you realize, Senator, that there are some parts of 
this country, at this time particularly, where roughage does not 
exist ? Have j^ou in mind your OAvn State of Oklahoma ? 

The Chairman. I am aware of that. 

Mr. Abbott. And the State of Texas, where they have been 
drought stricken for the last four years. 

The Chairman. I will say this, a friend of mine undertook the 
other day to ship Avheat straAV into west Texas for feed, w^here the 
dought lias been so severe and so destructive, but he was going to 
sell it as wheat straAv, which was a perfectly leg timate transaction. 
Now, if he had doped it up and sugar-coated it with molasses, and 
undertook to sell it as some concentrated feed, I think he would have 
been guilt}^ of a villainous practice. 

Mr. Abbott. If roughage does not exist in Texas or perhaps other 
isolated spots of this country, and timothy hay or other forage of 
desirable character can only be obtained at long distances and is 
worth in Chicago $31 a ton; and roughage in the form of cottonseed 
hulls can be purchased in Alabama and Mississippi and other South- 
ern States at $20 a ton — points near home with less freight rates — 
would you not consider it advisable for a farmer to at least consider 
the fact that he might be able to draAv to his door, his barn, the sup- 
ply of material he needs at a less cost? 

The Chairman. By all means. I am for that, but I want him to 
know when he is getting cottonseed hulls, hov\'ever. I don't want 
him to buy stuff from you as concentrated feed that is, the majority 
of the time, cottonseed hulls, and pay $50 or $00 a ton for it. 

Mr. Abbort. Senator, we are heart and soul with you as regards 
the adulteration or as regards the question of deceiving anyone. We 
are not in that kind of business. I don't know a single manufacturer 
in my knowledge that is doing that sort of thing. 

The Chairman. Are you from Illinois? 

Mr. Abbott. I am from Chicago. 

The Chairman. Have you got a fed law in that State? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was there any necessity for passing it? 

Mr. Abbott. Just the same necessity that there has been in all 
other States. 

The Chairman. What was that necessity ? 

Mr. Abbott. The necessity, I presume, grew out of the need of 
knowing a little more fully the chemical analysis, particularly of thp 
feeds. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 6'7 

The Chairman. Is the hiw pretty well enforced in your State? 
]Mr. Abkott. It is, sir. Now, further more, the question comes 
into our minds as to how you wish to measure the value of a food. 

The Chairman. I don't know that that would he material, Mr. 
Abbott. 

Mr. Ap.bott. It is material to this extent, sir. that you ask that 
the pei'centage of ingredients be placed upon the bag, irrespective 
of the fact that the chemical analysis, which has l)een recognized for 
many years by the ablest of chemists, has been one of the means by 
which the agricultural interests, the agricultural colleges, the ex- 
periment stations, have based their values of feeding ingredients. 
Are you going to pretend that the naked eye can tell by a question 
of percentage weight as to whether tliat is of greater value to the 
feeding public than the chemical feeding constituents will show? 

The Chairman. That is the reason I want them to be protected. 
I think the farmers can't tell. 

Mr. Abbott. The present laws of the various States are very rigid.. 
They are branded in a Avay which makes it impossible for a decep- 
tion. We contend that the State laws, together Avith the Federal 
laws, are ample in this respect. 

The Chairman. You say they make deception impossible? 
Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If that is true, there is certainly no occasion for 
this legislation. 

Mr. Abbott. There is not, if your laws are enforced. 
Dr. Jordan. Will Mr. Abbott permit Mr. Jordan to ask him a 
question ? 

The Chairman. I think so. 

Dr. Jordan. You stated that the value of these cattle foods was 
based upon the chemical analysis. 

Mr. Abbott. I merely stated, Mr. Jordan, that the question as it 
was brought out here in the interrogation was whether or not we 
should be forced to base our mixing formulas upon certain stated 
mechanical processes of percentage bases. Now, may I ask you while 

I am on my feet- 

Dr. Jordan (interposing). I wish you would answer my question 
first. Then I will answer one from you. You state that the chemical 
analysis shows the value of feed? 

Mr. Abbott. No, sir; I said it was a measure of value which has 
been recognized. 

Dr. Jordan. Yes; but it is recognized as entirely inefficient. 
Mr. Abbott. Then that has to do with the manner of enforcing 
that part of the regulations. If your chemists or those that are 
expert on that line prefer to draw up your laws so that you have a 
different working basis, of course, we are willing to abide by them. 
But may I ask you. Dr. Jordan, if we are to be bound to the question 
of percentage of materials in a mixture, and at the same time comply 
with the protein contents and the fat contents and the fibre contents 
of feeds, as required by the State laws, wall you tell me how it can 
be done? 

Dr. Jordan. I suppose there are some difficulties there, where you 
have a variable material, but in that statement you confess to the var- 
iable value of the various things you are selling. 



68 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

I would like to comment on my friend Chapin. I don't recojpiize 
him in the role he is playing to-day, because formerly he furnished 
ine with some very severe condemnation of the inferior materials in 
feeding stuffs, years ago, and, I declare. I don't recognize him now. 
[Laughter.] 

Another thing I wish to say. Brother Chai)in is ahvavs a little off 
on his nutritious facts. He said it didn't make any difference Avhere 
an animal gets its feed. Now, you know that an animal can't get 
energy enough from roughage alone. It has got to have sometliing 
0-1 se. 

Mr. Chapin. I know that. 

Dr. Jordan. Well, I wanted to correct that statement, that is all. 

Representative Levek. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, if we go on 
at the rate we have started to-day we will be liei-e until next July on 
this proposition, and I suggest that we let the witnesses proceed, and 
if Mr. Abbott, representing one side of this proposition, and Mr. 
Ward, representing the other side, wants to ask questions, it can be 
done after the wntness finishes his general statement. 

Dr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, may JVIr. Jordan break in for just one 
moment? I want to be fair to these people. I c'on't like the implica- 
tion that the death rate in the State of New York on cattle has been 
increased because of anything that has been sold in the feeds, because 
nobody has any proof of th;it, and that isn't f-aiT- to the feeding-stuff 
trade. 

Representative Lever. I don't think the i-u))lication made any 
impression on the committee. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, will you furnish a list of the Feed 
Manufacturers Association ? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes. 

(The list referred to was subsequently furnished by Mr. Abbott 
and is here printed in full, as follows:) 

Memreks of Amekican Feed Manufacturers Association. 

ax: GUST 1, 191'!. ACTIVE MEMBERS. 

Abingdon Milling & Cattle Feeding Co., Abingdon, lil. 

Akron Feed & Milling Co., The, Akron, Ohio. 

Albers Bros. Milling Co., Seattle, AVash. 

American Hominy Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 

American Linseed Co., New York, N. Y. 

American Milling Co., Peoria, 111. 

American Sugar Refining Co., Chicago, 111. 

Ames-Burns Co., .lamestown. N. Y. 

Arcady Farms Milling Co., Chicago, 111. 

Armour Fertilizer Works, Chicago, 111. 

Atlas Feed & Milling Co., Peoria, 111. 

Badenoch Co., J. .1., Chicago, 111. 

Bailey, E. I., Cleveland, Ohio. 

Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co., Baltimore, Md. 

Brode & Co., F. W., Memphis, Tenn. 

Brooks Elevator Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 

Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., The, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

BulTalo Cereal Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 

Butler & Co., Edw. J., Chicago, 111. 

Byrnes & Co., W. J., Chicago, 111. 

Carlisle Commission Co., Kansas City, Mo. 

Central Mills Co., Dixon, 111. 

Cereal Byproducts Co., St. Louis, Mo. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 69 

Chamberlain Co., F. B., St. Louis, Mo. 

Champion Feed Milling Co., Lyons, Iowa. 

Chapin & Co., Chicago, 111. 

Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. 

Clinton Alfalfa Mill Co., Clinton, Okla. 

Clover Leaf Milling Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 

Colorado Alfalfa Milling Co., The, Boulder, Colo. 

Conkey Co., The G. E., Cleveland, Ohio. 

Corno Mills Co., The, St. Louis, Mo. 

Corn Products Refining Co., New York, N. Y. 

Cox Co., Chas. M., Boston, Mass. 

Crabbs, Reynolds, Taylor Co., La Fayette, Ind. 

Darling & Co., Chicago, 111. 

Delany, Frank J., Chicago, 111. 

Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co., The, Lamar, Colo. 

Devereux Co., W. P., Minneapolis, Minn. 

Dickinson Co., The Albert, Chicago, III. 

Dixie Mills Co., East St. Louis, 111. 

Dodge-Hooker Mills, Wausau, Wis. 

Dold Packing Co., Jacob, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Douglas Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

Dreyer Conunission Co., St. Louis, Mo. 

East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co., National Stock Yards, ill. 

Edgar-Morgan Co., Memphis, Tenn. 

Eikenberry-Fitzgerald Co., The, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Elmore Milling Co., Onconta, N. Y. 

Emison & Co., J. & S., Vincennes, Ind. 

Emmert Co., The F. L.. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Empire Grain & Elevator Co., Binghamton, N. Y. 

Eshelman. .John W., Lancaster, Pa. 

Eureka IMills Co., St. Louis, Mo. 

Farmers Cotton Oil Co., Wilson, N. C. 

Farmers Equity Cooperative Co., Lamar, Colo. 

Feeders Supply Co., Kansas City, Mo. 

Fisher P'louring Mills Co.. Seattle, Wash. 

Garden City Milling Co., Garden City, Kans. 

Globe Elevator Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 

Golden Grain Milling Co., East St. Louis, 111. 

Goldsboro Milling & Grain Storage Co., Goldsboro, N. C. 

Gould Grain Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 

Grain Belt IMills Co., St. Joseph, Mo. 

Grandin Milling Co., D. H., Jamestown. N. Y. 

Great Western Alfalfa Jlllling Co., Denver, Colo. 

Gulfport Grocei-y Co., Gulfport. IMiss. 

Hailev Co., John H.. Houston. Tex. 

Hales & Edwards Co.. Chicago, 111. 

Hamlin, Dwight E.. Pittsburgh. Pa. 

Ha.skell & Co., W. H., Toledo, Ohio. 

Havwood Alfalfa Warehouse Co., The, Kansas City, Mo. 

H-O Co., The, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Hord Alfalfa Meal Co.. T. B., Central City, Nebr. 

Howell Grain & Feed Co., Union City, Tenn. 

Humphreys-Godwin Co., Memphis, Tenn. 

Imperial Grain & I^Iilling Co., ToleOo, Ohio. 

International Sugar Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 

Kasco Mills, Waverly, N. Y. 

Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), Spencer, Buffalo. N. Y. 

Kennedy, Morris, Rochelle, 111. 

Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co., Kansns City, Mo. 

Krause Milling Co., Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis. 

Lake Shore Elevator Co., The, Cleveland. Ohio. 

Lamar Alfalfa Milling Co., Lamar. Colo. 

Lancaster Commission Co., St. Louis, Mo. 

Larrowe Milling Co., The. Detroit, Mich. , 

Lederer & Dickson Co., Chicago, 111. 

Liddy & Co., Frank T., Chicago, 111. 

Louisiana State Rice Milling Co., New Orleans, La. 



70 ADULTEEATIOX OF MIXED FEEDS. 

I.ovitt & Co., L. B., IMemphis, Tenn. 

Mauire Brokerage Co., Memphis. Teixn. 

Marco Mills, Pine Bluff, Ark. 

Marcus, Julius, New York. N. Y. 

IVIatthews & Co. (Inc.), F. B., Kinjiston. N. Y. 

Meader-Atlns Co.. The. New York, N. Y. 

Meinrath Brokeriij^e Co., Chicago, 111. 

Milligan Co., C. J.. Sioux City, Iowa. 

Milwaukee Grains ic Feeil Co.. ISIilwaukee. Wis. 

Miner-Hillard Milling Co., V,'ilkes-Barrie, Pa. 

Moon-Taylor Co., Lynchburg. Va. 

North Bros., Kansas City, Mo. 

Northern Illinois Cereal Co., Chicago, 111. 

Nowak I\Iilling (]oi-poration, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Omaha Alfalfa Milling Co., Omaha, Nehr. 

Osage Cotton Oil Co., Kansas City. Mo. 

Park & PoUaril Co., The. Boston, Mass. 

Park &. Pollard Co. of Illinois. Tho, Chicago, 111. 

Patterson t-: Co.. C K., Jilemphis, Tenn. 

Penick & Ford (Ltd.). New Orleans, La. 

Peters Mill Co., M. C, Omaha, Nebr. 

Piert^e Co., Frank A., Minneapolis, Minn. 

Pincoffs Co., JMaurice, Chicago, 111. 

Prairie State Milling Co., Chicago. 111. 

Purity Oats Co., Davenport. Iowa. 

Quaker Oats Co.. The. Chicago, 111. 

Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, Mo. 

Rapier Sugar P'eed Co., Owensboro. Ky. 

Richardson Bros., Philadelphia, Pa. 

Riley Feed ^Vlfg. Co.. Pine Bluff, Ark. 

Royal Feed & Milling Co.. Memphis, Tenn. 

Smith, Parry «S: Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 

Smith & Wallace Co., J. C. Newark. N. J. 

Snvder & Co., C. U., Chicago, 111. 

Soper Co., J. E.. Boston, Mass. 

Southern Cotton Oil Co.. The. Charlotte, N. C. 

Sperry Flour Co., Stockton, Cal. 

Spratt's Patent (America) (Ltd.). Newark, N. J. 

Stratton-Ladish IMilling Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 

Superior Feed Co.. The. Memphis, Tenn. 

Swift & Co., Chicago, 111. 

Syracuse Milling Co.. Syracuse. N. Y. 

Tarkio IMolasses Feed Co., Kansas City, Mo. 

Tennessee Fibre Co., Memphis, Tenn. 

Texas Cake I'c Linter Co., Dallas, Tex. 

Tioga ISIill & Elevator Co.. Waverly, N. Y. 

Ubiko Milling Co.. The, Cincinnati. Ohio. 

Union Seed & Fertilizer Co.. New York, N. Y. 

United States Stock Food Co.. The. Kansas City, Mo. 

Valley Milling Co., The, St. Louis. Mo. 

Viehman Grain 60.. IVIinneapolis, ]\Iinn. 

Virginia Feed & Milling Corporation, Alexandria. Va. 

Wade, John & Sons, Memphis. Tenn. 

Weiss IMilling Co.. The Otto, Wichita, Kans. 

Westbrook Grain & IMilling Co., Pine Bluff. Ark. 

Western Alfalfa Milling Co., The, Denver. Colo. 

Western Gr.'iin Products Co., Hammond, Ind. 

West India Sugar & Molasses Corporation, New Orleans, La. 

Wil.son & Redus. Meridian, Miss. 

Wood & Sons, T. W., Riclnnond. A^a. 

ASSOCIATE MEMRKUS. 

Bauer P.ros. Co.. Tlie, Springfield, Ohio. 
Remis Bros. Bag Co.. St. Louis, Mo. 
Bosworth But: Co., Memphis. Tenn. 
Central Bag Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. 



ADULrBRATlON OF MIXED FEEDS, 71 

Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants, F. C. Jones, Secretary, Bnllville, N. Y. 
Gump Co., B. F., Chicago, 111. 
Mente & Co., New Orleans, La. 
Miner Laboratories, Chicago, 111. 

Mutual Millers & Feed Dealers' Association, Roy Mulkie, secretary. Union 
City, Pa. 

Sprout, Waldron & Co., Muncy, Pa. 

[Extract from constitution of American Feed Manufacturers' Association, showing pur- 
poses of organiaation.] 

Article II. — I'urijoscs. 

The purposes of this association shall be: To assist in the enactment and en- 
forcement of uniform laws and regulations which in their operation shall deal 
justly with the rights of feeding stulfs, manufacturers, dealers, and consumers. 
By concert of action with each other and with administrative officers of State 
and Federal laws, either individually or in their organized capacity, endeavor 
to correct any abuses, dishonest practices, or any evils in any way pertaining 
to the feeding stuffs Industry. 

To foster and promote such relations and intimacies between its members as 
shall tend to tirmer business relations in which all can stand together in efforts 
to impi'ove and perfect a standard of business integrity which shall include 
honesty of representation, carefulness of obligations, and promptness of execu- 
tion. 

The Chairman. Is tlie Armour packing house represented on that 
board? 

Mr. Abbott. I have before me. Senator 

The Chairman (interposing). Answer that question, Mr. Abbott. 

Mr. Abbott. They have not. 

The Chairman. Nor Swift & Co. ? 

Mr. Abbott. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Nor Morris? 

Mr. Abbott. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ferguson is not with Armour & Co.? 

Mr. Abbott. He was, so far as I know, at one time. I am not 
familiar with that now. He was with Swift at one time, I should 
have said, but I am not acquainted with his present position. I 
haven't had occasion to investigate it. 

Mr. Whitt:. There is one thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, 
before retiring, and that is, that I did not mean to convey anything 
more than that I had heard a rumor — ^lieard a statement — that cattle 
diseases might be due to feed. However, I had no authority for the 
positive statement. I will say this, however, the position of the State 
of New York is plainly shown, I think, by the resolutions which have 
been passed by the Dairy Men's League, representing nearly 60,000 
members. 

The Chairman. Have you got that resolution? 

Mr. White. No ; I think they have been forwarded. 

The Chairman. I wish you would furnish that. 

Mr. White. I will do so. The resolutions were also passed by the 
New York Grange, of 10,000 members; the Farms and Markets Coun- 
cil of the State of New York, which is at the head of our board of 
agriculture. All of these passed resolutions asking for the passage 
of this act. That is, practically all of the farmers of the State of 
New York. 

Representative Lever. Senator Gore, may I make another sugges- 
tion? We ought to get down to the brass tacks of this proposition 
before finishing this testimony, as to absolutely what you have in 



72 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

mind or what this conference has to deal with. Now, it seems to me 
that if we boil this thing down to its essence we have got several 
propositions. First, we have got this proposition: Is there machinery 
in existence. State and Federal, which will protect the farmers 
against the sale of fraudulent feed ? Is that proposition No. 1 stated 
broadly enough, you think. Senator'^ 

The Chairman. That question enters into it; yes. 

Kepresentative Lever. That is the one thing that enters into it. 
Now let's see if we can't ame'nd it so we can get down to the basis. 

The Chairman. Here is one point on that. The existing amend- 
ment is different, perhaps, in this regard. It proceeds to make the 
interstate shipment of these feeds and other feeds a crime. It 
permits the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for the ship- 
ment of feed where it complies with certain feeding value. Now 
it makes the act of the interstate shipment of adulterated feed a 
crime. Something affirmative has got to be done to prevent the 
man who would violate that law from violating it — to make him 
conform to it, and that is the object of this legislation — to define the 
law and then make the people conform to it. It takes some affirma- 
tive action for them to make shipment after that, and that will be 
done under rules and regulations of the department which will 
guarantee that the shipment complies with the law. That is the 
theory of it. 

Eepfesentative Lever. Well, now. I disagree with the Senator on 
that to some extent. I don't disagree with the burden of the proposi- 
tion, but I still insist that the testimony before the conference tends 
to show that we have State and Federal laws which now protect the 
consumer against fraudulent feeds. 

The Chairman. Designed to protect them. 

Representative Lever. Now, first of all, let us determine if that 
is true or not, whether we have sufficient laws, and in connection 
with that call some witness who can testify as to what the State 
laws are first, and then we will have the Solicitor of the Department 
of Agriculture here to testify as to what the Federal law is. Now 
that is a concrete basic proposition that we ought to follow. 

Now, the other proposition is. granting that you do have State 
and Federal laws which give protection — should give protection — 
let us ascertain if these laws are being enforced for the protection 
of the consumers of these feed stuffs. If we don't have the machinery, 
Federal or State, combined or separatel5% then let us take testimony 
as to what kind of law we want. Now that seems to me to be Avhat 
we are driving at, but if we scatter oiu' shot we will be here until 
next July. 

The Chairman. We have had some testimony here that the exist- 
ing laws were not effective. 

Representative Lever. Conflicting testimony. 

The Chairman. Yes. The feed manufacturers so far have testi- 
fied that they were ample. 

Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Jordan testified, I 
think, that about half of them are adulterated and don't come ud to 
standard according to actual analvsis under existing laws. Others 
have testified to that effect, and I think we ought to have some testi- 
mony of some farmers on that point. 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 73 

The Chairman. We will liine Dr. Miimford now, who can prob- 
ably shed some light on that. 

Mr. Abbott. May I ask for the Chicago Board of Trade that 
their representative be heard for just about five minutes? 

The Chairman. Yes; we will hear him for five minutes. 

Mr. Abbott. Their representative is here from Chicago and wishes 
to get away to-night. 

The Chairman. Certainly we will hear him for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF A. STAMFORD WHITE, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD 
OF TRADE, CHICAGO, ILL, 

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
Chicago Board of Trade and other grain exchanges, which are the 
principal agencies for marketing the crops of the country, are par- 
ticularly interested in marketing the same, so as to attain the best 
results for the producer and at the same time, by eliminating all 
waste or loss of valuable material, which loss would lessen the 
supply, serve the interests of the consumer. 

Our ownership not onh'^ handles grain in the condition in which it 
is received from the farm, but also represents the enormous capital 
investments in elevatoi's equipped for the economical handling and 
cleaning of grain, also mills and manufacturing plants. 

Most grain as received from the producer requires treatment in the 
form of cleaning, removal of foreign matter, separating a percentage 
of other grains, and sometimes drying. Elevators are equipped 
with machinery for such purposes, and a market is found for the 
by-product through mills properly equipped to make available the 
feeding value which they contain. 

It is an established fact that these by-products can not be easily 
distributed or made use of in their raw state, so feed grinding and 
mixing plants have been equipped with modern machinery for the 
purpose of securing the full feeding value. 

It is apparent, therefore, that the by-products have a value which 
is made available by the means referred to, resulting in a higher 
value to the grain and a better return to the producer than would be 
the case if the by-products Avere burnt under the boilers, as in the 
days before suitable machinery existed for their conservation. 

The quantity of ?-creenin.q-s cleaned from the grain in the larger 
centers of the American Northwest is estimated at upward of 300,000 
tons annually, and this quantity forms the basis for 1,000,000 tons 
of stock feed of proven value. 

The Chairman. What was the 300,000 tons? I didn't understand 
that. Was that screenings? 

Mr. White. Screenings; yes, sir. Except in the case of sheep 
feeding the feed value of screenings is largely lost unless they be 
finely ground, for when fed to stock a large proportion passes 
through undigested. In addition to this loss many of the seeds pass 
through the animal without losing their fertility and produce weeds 
on the farm. In addition to the screenage, the oat clippings from 
the Chicago elevators alone amount to 5,000 tons annually, and the 
corn offal from cleaning and drying plants, 2,500 tons, giving some 
ideas as to what the loss would amount to in the entire country. 



74 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. ■ 

Fifty years ago, when the population was smaller and the urban 
and the industrial population was smaller in relation to the rural, 
when there was a surplus of land, there Avas no problem connected 
with the food supply for man nor animal, so extravagance and waste 
naturally obtained. With the increase of wealth extravagance and 
waste became the habit of the people. With a rapidly growing 
population and higher prices scientific methods have gradually been 
applied to production, and to the thinking mind it has become appar- 
ent that more attention must be paid to the method of living and 
economy. 

The necessities forced by war conditions and the work of the P^ood 
Administration, under the wise direction of Mr. Hoover, have 
brought the attention of the people to the subject earlier than would 
otherwise have been the case, and it may result in permanent benefit 
to the country. 

It is with all respect and deference that I suggest that it would be 
most unwise, and particularly so during the present crisis to enact 
any legislation which would curtail the available supply of feed or 
lessen the facility of its distribution. 

In entering this plea it should be remembered that the board of 
trade refers only to those grain products, or extracts from grain, as 
are of known and tried feeding and commercial value, and which 
should not be confused with sawdust, dirt, nut trimmings, corn 
cobs, or other worthless or injurious matter mentioned in the bill. 
Those found guilty of using such worthless or deleterious matter 
should be severely dealt with under the provisions of the pure food 
law. And if that law does not provide the means of taking such 
proceedings I should rhink that it should be strengthened. 

The adoption of the amendment as written woidd result, first, in 
lessening the retui-n obtained l^y the producer for his grain; second, 
in reducing the supply of feed; third, in enhancing the cost of feed 
to the feeders, and consequently the cost of food products to the 
consumer. 

In a general way, Mr. Chairman, this represents the concensus of 
opinion on the Board of "Jrade of the City of Chicago. 

The Chairman. Well, I agree with your reasoning, Mr. White, 
in everything except the conclusions. I think most anybody would 
agree with the first j>art of your statement, but I am not so sure that 
the results will follow that you dei)ict. I don't see why the incor- 
poration of a provision against the interstate shipment of low-feed 
value stuffs as high-feed value stuffs would hurt the producer or the 
consumer, either one. Now, I am certain that you don't think that 
low-value stufl' ought to be sold as high-vahie stuff, and what we and 
what 3'ou want to get is to enable each to be sold on its merits so that 
one can not be sold under the camouflage of the other. Now, we 
will be glad to have any suggestion you have to make on that. 

Mr. White. It occurs to me, sir, in that connection that in making 
a compound feed that the present preference of the articles of greater 
bu.lk or lower value would counterbalance those of more concentrated 
value and average the price. It is true that it would enhance the 
price of the lower, but it would also reduce the cost of the highei- in 
the average price. 



ADULTf:KATION OP" MIXED FEEDS. 75 

STATEMENT OE A. B. CHILLUM. REPRESENTING THE EOOD ADMIN- 
ISTRATION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. CniLLu^Nr. Mr. (Miaii-Miaii. if I inio-ht say a word right there. 

The (^HAiR^iAx. Do yoii desire to catch a train. Mr. Chillinvi? 

Mr. CiiiLLUM. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. We have been proceedinji; ratlier iiiforxiaily, let- 
ting everybody do about as they please here, but if yon are obliged 
to leave to-night we will hear yon now. 

Mr. CiiiLLUM. The situation in Mass;;chusetts and. in fact, 
throughout New England, is very serious in tlie matter of this feed 
situation. It was last winter. It is true now and we are looking 
forward to a very serious situation next j^esir. Now, if the law, or 
this amend]uent as now written, goes into effect there is going to be 
very serious trouble. In fact, we vrill have an entire upsetting of 
the feed situation in Massachusetts, making if much worse than it 
is now. 

Tlie (^HAiKMAN. A^'ill yon point out hoAV that will h;i])pen? That 
is what we want. 

Mr. CninLUM. Now, we don't have any objections, of course, to 
telling the farmer exactly what he is getting. We want him to have 
that. In going into this thing we asked the experiment station down 
at the agricultural college regarding it, and Mr. Smith, of the agri- 
cultural station, is here, and since he is a technical man and under- 
stands this thing, I would like to have him speak on that subject, 
because that is where we got our information, and he has also to 
catch a train, and I ho|:>e you will be willing to hear him. 

The Chairman. All of tliese trains seem to be leaving about the 
same time. 

Representative Haugen. The gentleman didn't state how it would 
affect the situation in Ma^-sachnsetts. I think we ought to call on 
him to explain that. 

Kepresentative Lkaek. Mr. Smitli is going to state that. 

STATEMENT OF ME. PHILLIP H. SMITH, OF THE MASS^.CHTJSETTS 
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHEMIST IN CHARGE 
OF THE FEED-CONTROL WORK OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

The Chairman. Tender whose auspices do you appear, Mr. Smith '^ 
Mr. Smith. Under the auspices of the Director of Experiment 
Stations. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in Massachusetts those in charge 
of feeding stuffs legislation have always taken the attitude that it is 
allowable to sell any ]n-oduct having a food value, providing it is 
not injurious. We assume that the amendment would allow the inter- 
state shipment of articles mentioned, provided they were unmixed 
with other materials. This, in our estimation, would not materially 
improve the situation, and it is our belief that it w^ould be much 
better for the continued sale of such products blended in such a 
manner as to allow their use to the best advantage. It has repeatedly 
come to our attention that low-grade products sold by themselves are 
used by uninformed people in the place of better material, especially 
where — I am speaking, gentlemen, from my own experience — 



76 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

especially where a low price is an incentive to purchase. The low- 
grade material in the mixtures offered must be kept at a minimum on 
account of the competition with high-grade material. 

The adoption of the amendment would simply help to confuse an 
already perplexing situation, especially from the northeastern section 
of the country, where a sufficient quantity of feeding stuffs is to be 
the problem during the duration of the war. We would like to know 
what is to be done with these residues left at the place of manufac- 
ture, and what will be the effect on the price of human foods from 
AThich most of the products are derived. We believe that the in- 
jurious effects of such an amendment at the present time are much 
broader than its context would indicate. 

The assertion has been made that there has been a constant de- 
terioration in mixed feeds during the past two years. My experience 
as feedstuff inspector over a period of 18 years leads me to question 
the accuracy of this statement. The only two products that I know 
of that have really deteriorated certainly are products which prob- 
ably, if a strong plea were put up to the Secretary of Agriculture, 
would be exempted under the provision in the second section, and 
those are peanut cakes mixed with peanut hulls, and cottonseed cakes 
mixed with cottonseed hulls, if the manufacturers could demonstrate 
that in their process of manufacture those materials — that it Is 
necessary to press those materials together. 

Til conclusion, we believe that the ])reservation and utilization of 
any product having .feed value is a vital question in conservation and 
that the blending of all such products so that they can be utilized to 
the best advantage is a legitimate business. 

Now, I have heard it said here several times that it is largely a 
question of relative values. To my mind there is one side of the 
question which has not been brought out, and that is that if it is a 
question of relative values, the feeding-stuff manufacturers on the 
one side claiming that their products are sold for a price which does 
not give them an excessive profit, the opposition on the other hand 
claiming that these feeds are sold at an exceedingly high price— I 
believe the Food Administration has ample authority to investigate 
that point, and at this time when we ent^^r another complication into 
the utilization of every product which is absolutely necessary, it is a 
bad procedure to have legislation along that line, and that with the 
ample power of the Food Administration to investigate this matter 
they can regulate the matter so that these feed stuffs will not be sold, 
wdien sold in combination as mixed feeds, at excessive profits,'if that 
is the case. 

The CiiAiR]\rAx. You think the Food Administration has that 
power ? 

Mr. vSjiith. I believe they do. They have power to do most any- 
thing but take a man out and shoot him at sunrise. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Chapman, of the Food Administration, 
here ? 

Mr. Smith. He is a member of it, and I think he can interpret the 
rules and powers under which they work. 

The Chairman. Have you made your statement in full ? 

Mr. Smith. I might acid that probably about 35 per cent of feed- 
ing stuffs of this character are used in Massachusetts. The Massa- 
chusetts Agricultural College uses them and they get mighty good 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 77 

results. Lots of farmers use them and get good results, and they 
come back and buy- again. 

The Chairman. What are you speaking of now ? 

Mr. Smith. The mixed products containing oat hulls and various 
other things. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by "various other things" ? 
Of course, farmers are buying mixed feeds all over the country. 

Mr. Smith. Oat hulls, screenings, material which you have* desig- 
nated as having a low feeding value. 

The Chairman. Now, do you think that anything ought to be sold 
to a farmer as highly concentrated feed, or any other sort of feed, 
that is mixed Avith those things that detract materially from its feed- 
ing value? 

Mr. Smith. Why, Mr. Chapin has made the contention here — and 
others — that you can not mix two feeds without bringing that about. 

The Chairman. That is splitting hairs. That is an cAasion of the 
question. There have been a good many things enumerated here that 
obviously detract from the feeding value. You take cottonseed hulls ' 
and mix them with cottonseed meal, and the mixture is not as good 
as cottonseed meal, of coin-se. It is not as high, I mean, in certain 
values. But there are mixtures here referred to that detract mate- 
rially from the feeding value. Now, you say they do not? 

Mr. Smith. They may detract to a certain extent, but they are 
used in a very small volume that form^ an outlet foi- that kind of 
material. 

The Chairman. If they don't detract materially from the value 
they won't be prohibited under this law, will they? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, it says only those that detract from the 
value, and wdiere they don't detract materially from the value the 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized under this rule to permit this 
interstate shipment. Now, if they don't detract materially from the 
feeding value, they wouldn't be prohibited ; that is. I think, certain. 
Now, if it would, it ought to be prohibited, ought it not? 

Mr. Smith. Well, they are sold for wdiat they are. under a guar- 
anty and a statement of the ingredients. 

The Chairman. Is that your law? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that relates to stuif shipped in fi-om the 
outside ? 

Mr. Smith. For local manufactured stuff and interstate material. 

The Chairman. Now, you hear no complaints, then, from dairymen 
of your State about inferior feeds? 

Mr. Smith. We hear occasional complaints. We had a complaint 
from a man the other day because he bought oat hulls or oat feed in 
place of some other feed, and he said that he wanted to have me go 
out and arrest the man. but the man had sold him stuff for just what 
it was and he had used that material in place of something of a 
rather high feeding value. 

The Chairman. So the man sold it to him for wdiat it was? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then that can be done, can it not? 

Mr. Smith. You can sell anvthins: having a feeding value. 



78 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The CHAiuMAiSf. There is no reason why a nuin should not sell 
stuff for AThat it is, but I understand it is not your contention that 
the stuff ouoht to be sold to farmers for honiethino- else than what 
it is. 

Mr. Smith. No; I don't think it is. I think we aoreo on that 
point. 

The Chairma>;. How old is your feedstuffs law ^ 

Mr. Smith. It was. as originally passed, one of the first feedstuffs 
inspection laws in the United States, that, and the State of Maine, 
and the State of New York, and Connecticut, came in, I think, about 
the same time. 

The Chairman. Has it been amended? 

Mr. Smith. It has been amended tw^ice. 

The Chairman. Was its enactment based upon some sort of neces- 
sity to protect the consumers of feeds against adulteration? 

Mr. Smith. We felt that it Avas. 

The Chairman, Now, you speak generally. Have you made a 
'chemical analysis of these specimens of foodstuffs to see that they 
contain ©nl}'^ valuable ingredients? 

Mr. SariTH. We have. 

The Chairman. Have you got some of those with you? 

Mr. Smith. The bulletins? 

The Chairman. Have you found stuff in the specimens that was 
not of value ? 

Mr. Smith. Why, we found material in it; we have found ma- 
terial in feeding stuffs, material of unequal feeding values, different 
feeding values. 

The Chairman. Oh, well, of course, that is true. 

Does anyone wish to ask Mr. Smith any questions? If not, you 
can catch your train now. 

Mr. Smith. On this matter of catching trains. Senator, there is 
another man in the party. Mr. Hepburn, who is a practical farmer, 
I haven't heard any practical farmer here today. 

Representative Haugen. Just one question. A gentleman preced- 
ing you made a statement to the effect that it was necessary to 
adulterate foods in order to save the food situation What is your 
explanation of that? Do you believe it is necessary to permit the 
adulteration of foods to save the present food situation? 

Mr. S:mith. I do not believe, sir, that the feeding stuffs are gen- 
erally adulterated. 

Representative Haugen. But I. was asking you the question. That 
is a question involved in this amendment, and if effected, will the 
prevention of the adulteration of food, or deception in the sale of 
it, affect the food situation? Is it necessary to adulterate and de- 
ceive in order to save the food situation? 

Mr. Smith. I understand, sir, it is not adulteration as long as they 
state what they are selling. 

Representative Haugen. Have you listened to the evidence before 
you came on, the evidence here to show that there is deception? 
I thirk the statement made by Dr. Jordan proves that there is 
deception in the sale of feed, and you couldn't expect anything else. 
The action of one dealer is not indicting all of them, and I assume 
there are just as many honest people engaged in the production of 



/.Dur.Tr.KATTOx OF ?.rrxr.D Fr.ED=. 79 

feed as there are in any other line of activity, but there are those 
possibly that may be dishonest, and the purpose of this bill, as I 
understand it, is to overcome this very thing. Now, do you seriously 
contend that it is necessary to deceive in order to save the present 
feed situation? 

Mr. S:mith. I don't think it is necessary to deceive, sir. 

Representative Haltoen. Then what is your reason for the state- 
ment made by the gentleman who preceded you? How will it alfect 
the feed situation in your State? 

Mr. Smith. In the first place it will throw a large quantity of low- 
grade by-products unuiixed onto the market. 

Representative Haugex. No: I don't think it will do any such 
thing. 

Mr. Smith. Then you are going to create a feed shortage. 

Representative Haugen. I don't think you would question the in- 
tegrity or judgment of the vSecretary of Agriculture. I think it is 
safe to leave it to him, and it isn't fair. I think, for anvbody to ap- 
pear before this committee qiiestioning the integrity of the Secretary. 
Tt is left to his discretion, and we simply assuuie that he will do the 
right thing by all, and that all will have a square deal under this 
law as imder every other law. Of course, if you take the position 
that we are not going to have an honest administration by the Sec- 
retary, why I presume we will have to yield to your contention. I 
would like to have you explain — you have been called upon here to 
explain why it would effect a different situation. 

Mr. Smith. I think because, in a way, we have had a certain line 
of mixed food coming into the State. We have had these mixed 
rations and mixed feeds in a proportion of possibly 30 to 35 per 
cent — an old established business. A large proportion of the men 
that are buying those feeds are satisfied. In selling other kinds of 
feeds, bringing a large amount of feed into the State in different 
forms, you are certainly going to create an element of confusion. 

Representative Hauoex. Assuming that the Secretary would not 
permit the use of these feeds of lawer value 

Mr. Smith. He would permit the use of them ; I know he would. 

Representative Haugen. Then it will not affect you. It is left to 
the discretion of the Secretary, is it not? 

Mr. Smith. We are going to have it in another form. 

Representative Haugen. How do you know it Avill be in another 
form? Do you assume that an honei^t product would not be per- 
mitted to be '^hipped into the State under the permit issued by the 
Secretary? Do you assume he is going to take advantage of you? 

Mr. Smith. No. I confess I do not quite see your point, but I 
contend that the feedstuff shipped into the State containing oat 
hulls 

Representative Haugen. You think it is necessary to deceive them 
in order to sell it? The contention here is that everything should be 
labeled, that every man shoidd know exactly what he buys. We have 
had the same thing to contend with all these years: as to oleo- 
margarine, for instance. The manufacturers contended that they 
should be permitted to sell it for Avhat it was not. That seems to be 
the contention here, that you should be permitted to sell something, 
not for what it is but for what it is not. Now, is it necessary to 



80 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

deceive the people in oder to save the feed situation? That is the 
contention made in here by the gentleman Avho preceded you. 

Mr. Smith. They are selling these products in conformity with all 
the laws under which they are sold. 

Eepresentative Haugen. What about this law ? 
Mr. Smith. I do not think it is necessaiy. 

Representative Hauoex. The gentleman who preceded you said it 
was going to embarrass you people; that it was going to practically 
destroy the feed situation in your State. 
Mr. Smith. I believe it is. 

Representative Haugex. Then I presume you have some proof for 
it, based upon some facts of some kind. To allege a thing is one 
thing, and believe a thing is another thing. 

Mr. Smith. It is going to multiply the number of brands of feeds 
sold to a certain extent. You are going to have a lot of new products 
which very few of the farmers understand. They understand how 
to feed these old products. 

Representative Haugex. I can not see that it either adds or de- 
tracts in the least. If you are selling an honest product, now, I as- 
sume the Secretary Avould say, " Go ahead, here is you permit." 
But, in my opinion, if you are selling corncobs or pure cottonseed 
meal, I think he would say, " I believe you need a little regulation." 
Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I interject a remark at this time? 
The Chairmax. There are a number of other witnesses to be heard. 
Suppose you wait until they have finished. 

Representative Haugex. I am simply asking you the question. 
Mr. Smith. I contend that he is not selling corncobs. 
Representative Haugex. That is all I wish to ask. 
Mr. Ward. The gentlemen whom I represent — the National Milk 
Producers' Association and the National Live Stock Association — 
for their information, would like to know by whose invitation you 
attend and present this argument at this hearing. 

Mr. Smith. I was called up last Friday afternoon by Mr. John 
Willard, who is a member of the Massachusetts Food Administra- 
tion. 

Mr. Ward. And under Mr. Chapman. Is he the Mr. Chapman in 
Food Administration circles here? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know. He is connected with the Food Ad- 
ministration office in Boston. 

Mr. Ward. Has he charge of the administration of dairy foods in 
that State? 

Mr. Smith. To a certain extent I believe he has. 
Mr. Ward. And is there an arrangement about paying your fares 
and expenses here*? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know. I was asked by the president of the 
college to come down here. 

Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, that suggests the question, Wlio 
brings you here? 

Mr. Ward. The National Dairymen's Association and the National 
Milk Producers' Association. 

Representative Lever. Who pays your expenses? 
Mr. Ward. They do. 

Representative Lever. I do not ask that in a contentious spirit, 
but it seems to me these little personalities should not be interjected 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 81 

into this discussion. The whole conference here is for the purpose 
of trying to work out a big problem, and I think it makes no differ- 
ence who brought the gentleman here. 

Mr. Ward. The gentleman wanted to know. I have no personal 
interest in these associations, I asked the question at the suggestion 
of the president of the National Live Stock Association. 

Mr. Abbott. Who is he ? 

Mr. Lasater. I asked Mr. Ward to put that question. 

The Chairman. Let us not get into that sort of thing. We will 
hear the other gentleman who wants to catch the train — Mr. Hepburn, 
I believe. 

STATEMENT OF ME. W. K. HEPBURN, MANAGER UPLAND FARMS, 

IPSWICH, MASS. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hepburn, I understand you are a farmer? 

Mr. Hepburn. Yes, sir. I came down here on my own resources. 
I have a few thoughts that I would like to bring to the attention of 
the meeting. We have gone over this thing in a somewhat more 
technical way than I am prepared to speak on it. 

It has been my real good fortune for the past 10 years to have had 
under m}^ personal charge as a usual thing never less than 150 cows — 
the herd which was and is to-day the greatest herd of Guernseys in 
the United States, probably.' In that herd we have had the benefit 
of the best of breeding selection. It has been our effort to try to in- 
crease the milk production, and to that end we have devoted our 
thought and time and the use of the best and most nutritious feeds 
that would give us the best results over a long period of time. Years 
ago we were able to buy the so-called straight dairy ration ; we were 
able to get it at any of our New England stores. The dealer was 
then enabled to carry it ; he had capital to carry it on. Those feeds 
gave us very good satisfaction. 

But as the years went by my own personal experience has been, and 
that of all the breeders and milk producers all over New England, as 
I have mingled witli them, that these feeds that we were using were 
perhaps a little bit heavy, and we had to lighten them for the life of 
our cows, for a continuation year after year of high milk production. 
To-day we are able to go out and buy in our section of Massachusetts 
the so-called straight grains and mix them, but from a commercial 
standpoint we can not do this, as we find the dealer can not sell them 
at a price at which Ave can buy many of the so-called mixed rations, 
which to my own personal knoAvledge for the last several years have 
been used in the largest herds Avhere world's records have been made. 
In many herds they are using straight rations and in many herds 
they are having lots of trouble, which perhaps Avill not interest you 
gentlemen here, as you are not cattle breeders. 

Prrbably the greatest difficulty that is staring the dairy industry 
in tlie face to-day, particularly in regard to the pure-bred industry, 
is the nonbreeding of cattle. That is a serious question, gentlemen. 
It is one that has got to be considered. In many instances veterina- 
rians have been devoting their time to the problem, the best in the 
country, AAith, to my oAvn knoAvledge, very little relief. 
81413—18 6 



82 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Now, there must be a reason for that, and that reason to my mind 
is this — and I am giving you not only my own ideas, but what I 
have collected from the leading breeders of New England. A large 
part of the difficulty is due to the way the cattle are fed, and our own 
herd at the present time has been put on a broader ration. I am 
willing to acknowledge that I am not adverse to the use of oat hulls 
and various by-products when they are properly blended, because I 
have learned that in a great many instances each of the individual 
articles in that prepared feed make the other articles more palatable. 
With cattle, as at the human table, we want a variation of food; 
we must have palatability, and in a great many instances I believe 
that the qualities of the feed that make a cow reproduce, that make 
a good healthy calf and make the cow breed again the following year, 
are things that the wide ration gives. 

Take cotton seed. In New England we have a large number of 
small farmers who run dairies with six or eight cows. Invariably if 
they buy straight grains they also buy some cotton seed and one or two 
other feeds and mix them, but they do not get it broad enough. Con- 
sequently, as some of the men I see sitting around here now, you 
can see tlie ribs of the cows as far as you can see the cows. 

The )<'unj)i»r is not to blame. He is doing the best he can. He 
can no( buy a dozen different things and mix them ; he can not do it. 
I am noK an advocate of the ready-mixed feed, but I have used a good 
many of \hem, and I do not see where they have been violating the 
laws of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Rhode 
Island to any large extent. 

The Chairman. Well, what knowledge have you as to Avhether or 
not they have violated the law? Have you been an inspector of 
feeds? I mean you are a farmer, are you not? 

Mr. Hepburn. I am a farmer; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you buy for your own use? 

Mr. Hepburn. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you acted in any capacity that would bring 
you in contact with the mills? 

Mr. Hepburn. In many cases I have come in very close touch with 
the grain dealers and the leading dairymen throughout New Eng- 
land, as we attend all dairy shows, and we naturally talk over the 
things that are essential to the welfare of the dairymen in New 
England. 

The Chairman. Then your conclusion is that as far as Massachu- 
setts and Maine and all the New England States are concerned these 
adulterations are not a serious evil ? 

Mr. Hepburn. I have not been aware within the last few j^ears or 
at any particular time that there was adulteration. 

The Chairman. If that prevails in New England and other parts 
of the country, the dairymen would not have any objection to its 
being stopped, would they? 

Mr. Hepburn. Personally I would not. I am only talking from 
my own point of view. This having been brought to my attention I 
thought I would like to say a word, because my experience along the 
line of pure-bred stock 

The Chairman. As to that phase of it, we appreciate the im- 
portance of having cattle fertile and reproductive, and undoubtedly 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 83 

goocl feed tends to that result, but I am not quite sure that that goes 
just to the point at issue. 

Now, do you not think the sale of peanut hulls and sawdust pre- 
vails in your State ? 

Mr. Hepburn. No, sir ; I do not. I would not say that peanut hulls 
are not sold. It may possibly be done. 

The Chairman. You do not think that sawdust would contribute 
to the reproductivity of cattle in a breeding way? 

Mr. Hepburn. It would if they were bedded w^ith it. If it were 
used for bedding instead of for feed it might help the production 
lof milk. 

The Chairman. You would object to it for feed, and not for bed- 
ding? 

Mr. Hepburn. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am glad that you have come here, because you 
say you are a farmer, but I would like to know who suggested your 
coming ? 

Mr. Hepburn. Why, the matter was brought to my attention 
through the food commissioner in Boston. 

The Chairman. Who is he ? 

Mr. Hepburn. Mr, Chillum. 

The Chairman. Is that the gentleman that was here a minute ago? 

Mr. Hepburn. The second last man that spoke. 

The Chairman. Who is this food administrator? Is he appointed 
by some one here in AVashington, or is that a State organization ? 

Mr. Hepburn. I presume he is appointed by somebody in Wash- 
ington. 

Mr. Chillum. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir : I would like to know, because w^e have so 
many organizations that we can not identify them. 

Mr. Chillum. I am simply a member of the office force, as an 
agricultural expert, with the Board of Food Administration in the 
State of Massachusetts. 

The Chairman. Is that board appointed by the governor? 

Mr. Chillum. The board was originally api)ointed by the gov- 
ernor. I am not a member of the board. 

The Chairman. Is it a local State organization? 

Mr. Chillum. It is a local State organization, but it has been 
made a part of the United States Food Administration. 

While I am on my feet, I might state in answer to this gentle- 
man's question that the disrupting of the feed situation in Massa- 
chusetts by taking off the market the sale of mixed products is 
simply a practical question. We know that the farmer can not buy 
a lot of these different things and mix them; we know that he can 
not get the mill feeds at the present time. 

Representative Haugen. That question is not involved in this bill. 

Mr. Chillum. We understand that if the bill passes as it now 
stands mixed feeds will practically be eliminated. That is our 
understanding. 

Representative Haugen. Evidently you have not read the second 
section of the bill. 

Mr. Chh^lum. I have read it. 



84 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Representative Haugen. I think if you will read that you will 
reach s,ome other conclusion. I think you will find it is left to the 
discretion of the secretary. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this very point 
that Congressman Haugen brings up. 

The Chairman. I think we shall have to ask you to wait, Mr. Ab- 
bott. We have a good many witnesses here. 

STATEMENT OF MR. REESE B. HICKS, BROWNSVILLE, N. Y., PRESI- 
DENT OF THE NATIONAL WAR EMERGENCY POULTRY ASSOCIA- 
TION. 

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Chairman, may I have just a word? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hicks. There are three things in this amendment that I want 
to protest ag;iinst : First, damaged gra:n; second, screenings; and 
third, liay. That eliminates alfalfa and clover. 

As poultry feeders we can not use wheat, and of damaged Avheat 
and screenings Ave can use only 10 per cent or 15 per cent. We are 
limited. If damaged grains are entirely eliminated from our mixed 
feeds there is danger that our egg production and the reproductivity 
of our fowls will be very materially lessened. As to screenings — one 
of the basic features of our mash feeds — it must replace wheat, be- 
cause under our Food Administration ruling Ave can not use milling 
wheat. As to hay, alfalfa is very largely replacing bran. In fact, 
many poultry breeders say they Avonid rather have alfalfa meal 
than bran. 

Then I Avant to say something as to waste. As poultry breeders 
Ave have had to revise our feeding calendar. Within tAvo years Avliat 
used to be Avaste has come to be a valuable feed. Those of us Avho 
have lived in the West, in Kansas, knoAV that hogs almost live on 
alfalfa. While that is not considered a concentrate, yet to-day Ave 
are having to revise our textbooks on account of the value of alfalfa 
as a feed. As poultrymen Ave Avould be very seriously^ affected if Ave 
were cut off from feeding alfalfa in a mixed feed. Wo realize there 
are damaged grains — 

The Chairman. What do you do Avith them ? 

Mr. Hicks. They can be fed to hogs Avith some safety, but to 
poultry they can not be fed as readily. I oAvn a large farm; and we 
have our oAvn mixing machines, Ave have our OAvn system, and Ave 
have our oAvn grinding machines and cracking machines. 

There are three reasons Avhy the average farmer can not do that. 
It does not pay us really. We buy these ready mixed feeds, and we 
find them all practically as good as our oAvn mixed feeds. Of course 
they should be honest "mixtures. Some of these things like peanut 
hulls should be eliminated from feeds. 

Now, there are three reasons Avhy the average farmer can not mix 
his own feed. First, he can not afford to OAvn the machinery. The 
second reason is the cost of labor to-day, because it requires skilled 
labor, and labor is very high, especially along the eastern seaboard. 
The third reason is the cost of less-than-carload shipments. He can 
not afford to buy cottonseed meal and gluten meal and many of 
these other products that we have to use in large enough quantities, 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 86 

and the freight rates are too high. We do buy in hirge quantities; 
Ave even buy in car lots on a cooperative pLan, and distribute them. 
We are afraid tliat if this amendment passes as it is now worded 
it will have a serious effect on the poultry industrj' of New Jersey 
and many other eastern States. 

The Chairman. You assume the Secretary of Agriculture would 
not permit the shipment of the stuff? 

Mr. Hicks. That opens up the question of damaged grain. If it 
is ground it is a physical impossibility, in our judgment, to sepa- 
rate it. 

The Chaikman. I would like to say in this connection that one 
Pennsylvania Senator called my attention to a communication from 
a Mr. Xash, I think it was, of the Pennsylvania Poultrymen's Asso- 
ciation, favoring this amendment. 

I also have a letter here from a feed manufacturer located in the 
East, which I would like to have read to the committee. I ought to 
say that he asked that his name be withlicld. If there is no' objec- 
tion I will ask to have the letter read. 

(The clerk to the committee thereupon read the letter referreel to, 
which is here printed in full, as folloAvs:) 

September 14, 1918. 
Senator Goke, 

United States Senate, W a. shi in/ton, I). C. 

Deak Snj : You have .-in amendment to House bill 11945, vvhich amendment 
was acted upon favorably by the United States Senate on Friday last. The 
feed trade seems to be somewhat upset because of this action, but there are 
some vei-y good points to the amendment in question, and undoubtedly in the 
long run it would be of great benefit to tlie feeders in tlie country, although it 
might put out of business some manufacturers of mixed feed who use more or 
less junlv in the preparation of their goods. 

We are not attempting to defend either the amendment or the manufacturers 
of live-.«tock feed who might be interfered with in their present acfivities, but 
we are sending to you for your perusal a sample of ground screenings, which 
we received to-dny from a concern in the West. These goods are offered at $31 
per ton in bullv f. o. b. an eastern point. If you will examine this sample and 
smell it you will find that it has every evidence of being off grade, and it was 
undoubtedly your i)ui-pose in asking for the amendment in question to avoid 
the use of just such material. 

Some years ago we received from a western elevator concern a sample of 
what looketl , to us to be dirt taken out of a carpet sweeper. This was all 
brand new to us. We had never seen nor heard of anything like it and we 
wrote to these very estimable people and asked them what it could be used 
for. They very promptly answered and said that it was elevator sweepings and 
scourings and that they had sold it to mixed-feed manufacturers and that they 
would like to sell some of it to go into the western territory. This again is 
another one of the commodities that you are trying to eliminate from mixed 
feed, and so far as we can see there are many reasons why such stuif as this 
should be absolutely legislated out of business. There are many good feeds on 
the niarket — lots of mixed feeds that are above criticism in every way, and, 
of course, your amendment or any other legislation of a similar nature could 
not at any time alfect a legitimate mixing proposition, particularly as the 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue written permits for the ship- 
ment of' concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing foreign material 
which, in his judgment, is inseparable fmm such prepared feeds. 

We send you the sample herewitli inclosed and the information in regard 
to the other" material because we lielieve that it is well that you should be ad- 
vised of these things. As we have stated above we are not attempting to argue 
that the amendment is either good or bad, neither are we attempting to set 
forth either the merits or the demerits of the mixed-feed industry. We merely 
give two interesting pieces of information and a sample which we think will 
prove of interest to you and perhaps help as well. 



86 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

V\'e should like to ask that you ?;rant us one favoi*, and that is that if you 
discuss this matter at ali either publicly or privately and use the information 
which we liave given that you kindly refrain from quoting us. You see we 
occupy a rather unfortunate position. A great many manufacturers in the 
West might absolutelj' blacklist us if they thought we had done anythimi- that 
might in any way interfere with their present activities. We might suffer 
the entire loss of our Imsiness because we have given you this information. Of 
course, we know that this would be un-American and undemocratic, that we 
should be so censured, but these things ai'e done, as you undoubtedly know, so 
we ask you in all kindness not to divulge the source of this particular' informa- 
tion. We are doing this'in order that we may be protected, and we are send- 
ing you the information because we think it is our patriotic duty to do so. May 
we ask you to be good enough to acknowledge this letter and to assure us that 
you wdl not quote us at any time, although we want yon to be free to use the 
information for your own purpose. 
Respectfully, yours. 



The Chairman. Now, we liave had two practical fanners. Mr. 
Lasater, we would like to hear yoii for about five minutes. 

Mr. Lasater. On what particular phase of the matter. Senator if 
The Chairman. I believe you are a cattleman, to a certain extent. 
We would like to hear you as to desirability of permitting the inter- 
state shipment of adulterated feedstuffs. 

STATEMENT OF MR. E. C. LASATER, STOCKRAISER. FALFURRIAS, 

TEX. 

Mr. Lasater. Mr. Chairnuin. I think the point these gentlemen 
make here is that they are putting out a connnodity that will enable 
the producer to cheapen his procUicts. I think that is your i)oint, 
is it not ? 

The Chairman. I suggest that you go ahead and make your state- 
ment. 

Mr. Lasater. I would state this: In my opinion, under present 
conditions, the cost of production of dairy products by the use of 
compound feeds has materially increased. That has come about in 
this way: As Prof. Jordan stated here, there is no use in the farmer 
buying feed which he has on hie own farm in superabundance. As 
it now stands, it is practically impossible for him to get his con- 
centrates Avithout buying the stuff with which he is already loaded 
down. 

I ranch and farm in southern Texas 

The Chairman. How manv head of cattle do you have? 

Mr. Lasater. From 15,000 to 20,000 cattle, about 2,000 of them 
dair}' animals. I w^ill say this: I have one of the good Jersey herds 
of the LTnited States. In answer to the gentleman who jiist pre- 
ceded me, the farmer who argued that he had to use mixed feeds in 
order to keep his cattle breeding and reproducing, I will state that 
I have shown on the northern circuit from my ranch for two years 
at the National Dairy Show— tw'o years ago at Springfield. Mass., 
and last year at Columbus, Ohio. The year before last I took back 
to Texas what they term the breeder's diploma — that is, I won more 
ribbons with cattle bred by myself than any other exhibitor. Last 
year I took back both diplomas — the breeder's diploma and the ex- 
hibitor's diploma. That means I sho^ved a herd of 27 animals, 22 
bred on the ranch. That would indicate, at least, that I understand 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 87 

feeding so as to get reproduction coupled witii quality and develop- 
ment. 

Up to last year in Texas — I will confine myself to cottonseed prod- 
ucts just now — I always bought the highest protein content I could, 
because I produced my own roughness. I was able to buy 51 per 
cent protein content until last year. Last year it was cut clown by 
an understanding with the millers, so that I had to buy 43 per cent 
protein, and my understanding is noAv that the protein content 
of cottonseed cake is reduced to 36 per cent. 

That simply means to the ranch or farm that has its own rough- 
ness that it is buying and paying a high freight rate for something 
it does not need. Take the ranchman in the northwest who is buy- 
ing cottonseed cake to feed on his range ; he has to pay for the rough- 
ness that the meal contains, and the freight bill is more than its 
feeding value. The same would apply to the dairyman in New Eng- 
land who buj^s cottonseed products. On the low protein content he 
pays for the roughage in freight more than it is worth to him. 
The same thing applies to everything these gentlemen put out, that 
they have it loaded down with this low feed value stuff. In the 
majority of instances they are simply forcing men to pay for that 
which they have in superabundance. 

Representative Lever. Let us see if I get your theory. Your theory 
is that you are in favor of this proposition because it would force 
off the market practically all these compounded feeds and therefore 
force the farmer to raise his own roughage ? 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. Not in every instance. You can not find 
dairying in any section that is prosperous where a good deal of 
roughage is not produced on the farm. That is one of the essentials 
that go with economic production. Now, if you permit a condi- 
tion — and it is practically the situation to-day — such that the dairy- 
man can not buy straight feeds, straight grains, he has to be content 
to buy these compound feeds. If we permit that condition to 
crystallize, to become any more a fact than it is to-day, then we 
unquestionably fasten upon the country something that is bound to 
increase the cost of production of all dairy products. 

Eepresentative Lever. Suppose you stop it immediately, what 
would be the effect? 

Mr. Lasater. This amendment would not stop it immediately; it 
would have a tendency to check the manufacture of these compound 
feeds of low feeding value. It would have a tendency to put back the 
straight grains into the trade, and in time I think that would be the 
effect of this amendment. 

Eepresentative Lever. In other words, your proposition is that 
you will force the farmer, by the big stick 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir; I would force the feed manufacturer, by a 
just law, to do business right and to sell to the farmer what the 
farmer supposes he is buying from him. That is what I think that 
amendment would do. 

Eepresentative Lever. Your proposition, then, would be to pro- 
hibit the interstate shipment of all low-feeding- value stuff? 

Mr. Lasater. Still not that. The amendment does not prohibit 
it; it permits the shipment, provided he states what it is. For 
instance, he would have tags something like this. I can not see that 
it would do any harm to any honest manufacturer. The tag would 



88 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

say: " Oat hulls, 20 pounds; sand, 5 pounds; wheat straw, 20 pounds; 
cottonseed meal, 20 pounds; blackstrap, 20 pounds; wheat screen- 
ings, 15 pounds; total, 100 pounds." Then, it would give the chem- 
ical analysis, and the farmer Avould know what he was buying. 

Eepresentative Lever. We have a South Carolina law on that 
proposition that practically does that, and I think there is a Texass 
law. 

Mr. Lasatek. I want to say tliis: I do not understand how it is 
that we could not buy meal last year with more than 43 per cent of 
protein. My understanding was that our law protected us against 
that. But the Food Administration is practically in charge of the 
mills of the country; it has supervision of things, at least. At any 
rate, I know of nobody else that bought a higher protein content last 
year than 43 per cent. 

Here in Washington last week there was a meeting of the cotton 
seed producers with the mill men, and the understanding was that 
the protein content would be this year 36 per cent. That is a seven 
point reduction from last year. 

The Chairman. What was the price last year? 

Mr. Lasater. Last year it was $53.50. As a matter of fact, it is 
equivalent to raising the cost to the feeder about $7.50 a ton this year. 

In closing, the manufacturers claim that their cost of manufacture 
is higher — about $6 a ton higher than last year. I may be incor- 
rect as to the exact figures, but I think it was something like $13 a 
ton margin the}'^ were alloAved last year. All that increased cost has 
been put on the cottonseed hulls and meal ; no. part of it has been 
absorbed by either the oil or the linters, is my understanding. A man 
who does not go into it and study it would not understand that he 
is paying $7.50 per ton more for his meal this year than last year. 

Representative Lever. What does your Texas law say about these 
compound feeds? 

Mr. Lasater. I do not know, sir, that we have any law on com- 
pound feeds. I am not sure about that. For instance, take the 
Quaker Oats people. That feed is shipped into Texas, and I have 
never heard of any interference. 

Representative Lever. Is it labeled " Quaker Oats " ? 

Mr. Lasater. It is labeled " Schumacher Feed." That is the par- 
ticular brand of compounded feed put out by Quaker Oats Co. that 
I have used. 

Representative Lever. Does it give the percentage of protein in it? 

Mr. Lasater. It gives the proteins and fats, but I do not know 
that it gives all the ingredients. These gentlemen would be better 
posted on that. It would give the chemical analysis, but not the 
ingredients that compose it. 

Mr. Chapin. Mr. Lasater, don't you know that Texas has an in- 
gredients law compelling the marking of feed, and has had for the 
last seven years, and that nobody can ship feed in there without 
stating every ingredient ? 

Mr. Lasater. I have not seen the law. 

Mr. Chapin. Don't you know the Quaker Oats people give the 
correct names and analysis? 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. 

Mr. Chapin. I would like to ask you a question. Did you say you 
can not buy 51 per cent cottonseed meal in the State of Texas? 



ADTJLTEBATION OP MIXED FEEDS, 89 

Mr. Lasatek. I will say I was not able to buy it last year. 

Mr. CiTAPix. Was that on account of the drought that the supply 
had been all used up'^ 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. I bouo-ht probnbly as inuch as 1,000 tons, 
and I got 43 per cent. I always prefer to buy a high protein 
content, but last year I was unable to buy it. 

Mr. Chapix. I was able to buy it, and I can buy it now for a 
proper price. All I have to do is to pay $7 per ammonia unit. 

Mr. Lasater. That means $1 per point of protein content. 

Mr. Ciiapix. Somewhere around there. You see, you can get any- 
thing you want there if you pay the price for it. The 51 per cent 
cottonseed meal is as high as annnonia is selling on a fertilizer basis. 

Mr. Lasater. I have filed with the chairman telegrams and letters 
to that effect from something over 250,000 feeders and dairymen. AVe 
know we can not get what we want. Just the reason wlw these feeds 
can not be obtained I am not prepared to tell you. 

Mr. CiiApiN. This is wholly within the State of Texas, is it not? 

Mr. Lasater. No. sir. 

Mr. Ciiapix. You buy your meal in the State of Texas? 

Mr. Lasater. I buy my meal in the State of Texas: yes. 

The Chair:\iax. Mr. C'lnipin, I do not believe you stated your 
initials and address. 

Mr. C'hapix. Robert W. Chapin, Chicago, 111. T am a manufac- 
turer of dairy feeds at Hammond, Ind. 

The Chairmax. Are ^^^ou connected with the food administration 
of Illinois? 

Mr. Ciiapix. I aiii not. I am called down here in an advisory 
capacity once in a v>hile, and they call upon all members of the 
trade occasionally and ask their opinions. 

The Chairmax. Who does ? 

Mr. Ciiapix. The Food Administration. 

The Chairmax. They call in the food manufacturers, do they? 

Mr. Chapix. They have done so; they have had conferences. 
They are going to have one to-morrow, I believe. 

Mr. Lasater. I would like to make this statement before we leave 
this subject. I believe that if you will go into the cost of these 
mixed feeds and ascertain the cost of the straight ingredients that 
go into them, you will find that the farmer can buy the straight 
ingredients and mix them at a less cost than the cost of these feeds. 

Representative Lever. You do not contend that this amendment 
gives anybody any authority to do that ? 

Mr. Lasater. No; but it will enable him to do it. It is going to 
have the effect of bringing the straight grain feeds back on the mar- 
ket. These gentlemen can buy them; but if we had a thousand 
producers, you would probably find that 800 of those producers 
could not buy them. They are buying mixed feeds because they can 
not get anything else on the market. 

Representative Lever. And they can not get roughage ? 

Mr. Lasater. A great many of them have their own roughage. 
Of course I only count for one, but in my locality I have the rough- 
age; I want the proteins and fats. 

Representative Lever. You are one out of a thousand, are 3-011 not? 

Mr. Lasater. By no means. Of course it varies with the seasons. 
This year New York may be short on roughage; next year it may 



90 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

have a surplus. They ought to be in a position to buy what they 
need. As it is they have to buy the roughage in order to get the 
concentrates, and that adds to the cost of living. 

Representative Lever. Were you ever connected with the Food 
Administration ? 

Mr. Lasater. I was; yes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. HERBEET W. MUMFORD, PROFESSOR OF ANI- 
MAL HUSBANDRY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. 

Dr. MuMFORD. Mr. Chairman, we find that there is an increasing 
sale of these mixed feeds. I wish to call attention to three or four 
questions which have been raised here, and which I think have not 
been directly answered. The extent to which there is an increase in 
the sale of these mixed feeds can best be answered by the gentlemen 
who represent the American Feed Dealers' Association. Those sta- 
tistics are in the possession of these gentlemen. It has been repeat- 
edly stated here, I believe, that in the State laws and in the pure- 
food law there is ample protection for the producer. 

The Chairman, You mean the consumer? 

Dr. MuMFORD. I mean the producer of live stock. Notwithstand- 
ing that fact, we find that it was stated at the convention of the 
American Feed Manufacturers' Association at Buffalo, June 7 and 8, 
that there was considerable dissatisfaction. 

The Chairman. That is, June 7 and 8, this year? 

Dr. MuMFORD. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The convention of the Feed Manufacturers' As- 
sociation ? 

Dr. MuMFORD. Yes, sir. It was stated that there was a good deal 
of dissatisfaction among the manu.factnrers with these laws. As I 
understand it to-day they are quite Avell satisfied with these laws. 
Notwithstanding the fact that they tell us that these laws have been 
working very satisfactorily, Mr. Chapman, representing the Food 
Administration, stated at this same meeting — 

I'eports now in tlie liaiuls of the Food Administration show many instances 
of profits ransinc; from .$10 t<» !';23 por ton on these mixed feeds. 

He also states that these profits are out of reason and Avill not be 
tolerated. 

Representative Lever. That has absolutely nothing to do with this 
proposition; this is not a price-fixing bill. 

The Chairman. It is this selling of this worthless stuff for feed. 

Mr. Chapin. I wns at that meeting; may I correct that statement? 
I heard those remarks, and they referred solely to retail profits on 
bran, not on mixed feeds. 

Representative Lever. Let me say this: 1 am afraid my attitude 
may be misunderstood here. I am trying to help in this matter, but 
I do not see the use of clogging this record Avith a lot of explaining 
things, and I tried to lay down a formula here that would be helpful 
to us. If they are going to bring in a lot of extraneous matters we 
can not clean up these hearing in three or four days. 

Dr. MuMFORD. I shall undertake to show, Mr. Chairman, exactly 
what the increased sale and manufacture of mixed feeds does to the 
producer. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 91 

Representative Lever. That is all right. 

Dr. MuMFORD. And I think it is competent to know that there are 
abuses where profits ranging from $10 to $43 per ton obtain. 

When I first read the reports of this amendment as it came out I 
said to myself : " Now, there is a proposition upon which all honest 
feed manufaeturei's and the producers of livestock can join." I find 
there is very great opposition on the part of feed manufacturers to 
this amendment. I believe that the increased sale of mixed feeds — we 
wnll say adulterated mixed feeds — is a menace to the live-stock inter- 
ests for this reason : The live-stock producers of this country have 
come to look upon the experiment stations of this country for their 
guidance and their help. I ask you what these experiment-station 
men can do to help the live-stock producers of this country when they 
are asked to pass upon the merits or demerits of some 4,500 brands of 
mixed feeds. You will find, if you care to look it up, in a bulletin 
published by the Indiana Experiment Station Mav 1. 1918, that there 
are listed th'Cre something between 4.500 and 5,000 mixed feeds. 

Representative Lever. That is an interesting point. Let me ask 
you this on that point, as a practical matter : You say it is a very 
hard matter for you experiment-station people to ]iass upon these 
various mixed feeds, and yet here you are asking the Secretary of 
Agriculture to pass upon four or five thousand of them before this 
law can become operative. 

Dr. Mumford. No; my mf)tion is this, Mr. Chairman: If this 
amendment goes into effect it will cut down by about 75 per cent the 
number of these brands that are offered on the market. 

Rejjresentative Lever. Before any of this stuff can go into inter- 
state commerce the Secretary of Agriculture, under this amendment, 
must issue a license or permit showing certain things to be facts. 
NoAv, the Secretary of Agriculture, if he is the kind of Secretary I 
think he is, is not going to issue these permits without the facts, and 
he can not get the facts without an investigation. How long will it 
take him to make such an investigation? 

Dr. Mfmford. That is a matter of detail of administration which 
I am not supposed to pass upon. 

Representative Lever. I think it is very important. 

The Chairman. As I understood you, it is very hard for you to 
pass on these samples. After they have passed through interstate 
commerce and come into the hands of the farmers it is difficult for 
them to examine them. 

Dr. Mumford. Yes. sir. 

The Chairiman. Now. there are a million farmers needing these 
things, and don't you think it would be easier for the Secretary to 
stabilize the industry and issue the rules and regulations in accord- 
ance with which the business should be carried on and take hold of it 
in its incipiency instead of at the end. 

Dr. Mumford. I most certainly do. 

Representative Haugen. It would result in the standardizing of 
the business, would it not? 

Dr. Mumford. Yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. And instead of having 4.000 or 5,000 dif- 
ferent standards you will have it reduced to only 50 or 100. 

Dr. Mumford. Another fact which is not generally known, but 
which experiment stations come in contact with, is the fact that two 



92 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

different brands of feed have al3solntely and exactly the same chemi- 
cal composition, while they are sold under two diiferent brands. The 
amusing part of it is, as some of you gentlemen know, that both these 
feeds can be sold in the same commnnity under two different trade 
names, although they might have come out of the same bin so far as 
anybody can tell and the farmer will dro]) the use of one of those 
feeds aiid take U]) the other and swear that it is better than the first 
one. 

Representative Lever. As a practical proposition. Dr. Mumford, 
how would you handle that? Would you prohibit the use of trade 



names m commerce 



Dr. Mumford. Xo, sir. 

Representative Lever. How would you get at it? 

Dr. Mumford. I do not believe anv manufacturer ought to be 
allowed to sell the same product under two different brand names. 

Representative Lever. How about two different manufacturers sell- 
ing cottonseed meal. 43 per cent, one calling it "Mississippi Red" 
and the other " South Carolina Blue "? Do you believe in that? 

Dr. Mi :mford. That would not be the same proposition. 

Representative Lever. That is the same article sold under a dif- 
ferent trade name. 

Dr. Mumford, It is the helplessness of the farmer and the pro- 
ducer that I want to bring out. I believe it is a fact that the com- 
mercial feedstuff business in this country depends solely upon you 
gentlemen being able to produce a straightforward product, all wool 
and a yard wide, and every one of you sticking to it and helping to 
put these men out of business who are trying to do a crooked busi- 
ness — and you know there are plenty of them. 

The Chairman. Have you a State law in Illinois against the 
adulteration of feeds? 

Dr. Mumford. I understand there is. I understand also it is the 
general feeling among the manufacturers that it is more or less of a 
joke. Is there anybody here that has had very much trouble with 
the administration of the food law in the State of Illinois. (No 
response.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? If not, I would 
like to hear Dr. Wing, of Cornell. 

STATEMENT OF DR. HENRY H. WING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 
ITHACA, N. Y., PRESIDENT OE THE NEW YORK GRANGE 
EXCHANGE. 

Dr. Wing. Mr. Chairman, I am here at the request of Mr. S. J. 
Lowell, master of the New York State Grange, who, I believe, had 
an invitation from yourself. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. Now, Doctor, I would like to hear you 
discuss this amendment from the standpoint of the farmer and the 
consumer of grain. 

Dr. Wing. I would say, first, that I indorse everything that Dr. 
Jordan had to say in regard to the law in his remarks this afternoon, 
and that the Grange would fully indorse those statements. 

I do not know that at this late hour I have very much further to 
add, except to give sonie impressions with respect to the statements 
that have been made in regard to some of these feeds that are said 



ADULT KRATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 93 

to have and probably do have some feeding vahic. "\\'e have to take 
into consideration not only the composition of the food but the con- 
dition in which it coiites to iis and the way tiie aninuil takes it. 

A good deal has been said about the cottonseed hulls. I feed ani- 
mals myself, some 150 a year, not a great number, but I have pur- 
chased the feeds for them for the last 20 or 25 years. Some cotton- 
seed hulls came into my hands, straight hulls, about two years ago, 
with the request that I see if they were available for feed in Xew 
York State. The animals would not eat them alone, ' You could not 
put enough butter on them or sugar to make them go d(»wn, as you 
could on a sn^.all boy's ])read. 

Now, I have been conversant with the uiixed feed situation for 
about the same length of time. My experience and the exj^erience of 
many others has led us to believe that the chief object in n)aking 
these patented feeds, to use Dr. Jordan's term, is to make a feed that 
otherwise would be rejected, or nearly completely rejected by ani- 
mals — to make them eat it. The object is to sell a feed in combina- 
tion that would not sell on the market on its own merits at anywhere 
near the price that is asked for it in a mixed feed. 

Some statements have been made here with respect to the possi- 
bility or impossibility of consumers getting straight, good feeds, so- 
called, in the markets at the present time. The conditions in New 
York State are quite different from what they are in the Central 
West and producing States. The retailing of commercial feeds is 
almost Avholly in the hands of small retail dealers in small towns, 
where the dairymen and other consumers drive up to the store and 
take away a few hundred pounds or a few tons of it at a time. Those 
men do not like to handle but one kind of feed, and they will natu- 
rally take the brand tlu't they can make the r-ost ron^y out of and 
that they can recomuiend or that thev can g'-i't the farmers vo use. 

In the last 5 or 10 years while, as Dr. Jordan says, we have no fiar- 
ures on the tonnage basis, connnon observation shows an increase in 
the use of these fpeds. The percentage Dr. Jordan gave : 09 per cent 
or something like that. Sometimes they all contain more or less of 
these worthless or semi-worthless articles, or articles of low value, to 
use the best term, which has been identified by the inspection in New 
York. 

The law in New York undoubtedly has afforded some protection, 
but under the operation of the law in the State of New York Dr. Jor- 
dan showed you conclusively that the number of brands and the pro- 
portion of mixed feeds, as compared with straight goods, has been 
constantly increasing in the nearly 20 years of the operation of that 
law. 

Representative Levkr. To what do you attribute that increase. 
Dr. Wing? 

Dr. WiNO. To the reason I just pointed out a few moments ago. 
Particularly in these last years since prices of feed have risen the 
retail dealers do not want to handle more than one kind of feed. 
Thev can take the agency for a mixed feed and do not have to put so 
much capital into it as they would if they kept a stock of four or five 
or a dozen different kinds of straight feeds. In the larger markets 
you can buy cottonseed meal or straight gluten, distillers' grains — 
until they were shut out — and things of that sort ; but in the small 



94 ADULTEEATTON OF MIXED FEEDS. 

markets, the towns that have only 1,000 or 2,000 inhabitants, where 
there is only one feed dealer, or only two or three, you can not do 
that. 

Eepresentative Lever. What would be the effect on the retail deal- 
ers all over the country if we pass a proposition like this which would 
compel the sale of the straight goods? 

Dr. WixG. They would sell straight goods. 

Eepresentative Lever. In other words, they would rather go out 
and get some cottonseed meal 

Dr. Wing (interposing). Or they could make a mixture of straight 
goods that would not contain these things. You can make a mixture 
that does not contain these objectionable things. You can make a 
mixture of wheat bran and cotton seed or lin seed in varying propor- 
tions, and it will not contain any one of these objectionable articles. 

The Chairman. Is the grange organization in New York under- 
taking to put into operation some cooperative system of doing that? 

Dr. Wing. Yes; they just have it in process of organization at the 
present time. They expect to open offices in Syracuse the 1st of 
October. 

The Chairman. I hope you will report to us how it fares. 

Dr. Wing. That will depend very largely on the amount of busi- 
ness we can get and the amount of money. 

Mr. Story. Mr. Chairman, have you considered what disposition 
the manufacturers will make of their stock on hand? 

The Chairman. I will say, Mr. Story, that it was an oversight that 
there was not a time limit written into this bill. They ought to have 
the time of their ordinary turnover written into the bill. 

Mr. Story. I was asking for information, because many of our 
dairymen and poultry men in Massachusetts are interested in the 
amendment, inasmuch as practically all of the poidtrv feeders are 
using damaged feeds — damaged wheat and mill run of screenings — 
and as they understand the bill it would bar most of the so-called 
standard feeds. 

The Chairman. Do they object to damaged grains mixed up with 
other feeds? 

Mr. Story. Yes. They are small operators — both of our herds are 
small — and it is difficult for them to secure the materials and to mix 
them for the small herds. They do not like to bother with it, and it 
is a serious matter at this stage of the season, which they will have to 
do if those feeds are all barred or held up subject to thorough investi- 
gation by the secretary. It was with that in mind that I asked the 
question. 

The Chairman. You are right about that, and that will be allowed, 
if agreed upon. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HARRY CASADAY, ALFALFA MILLER, 
DENVER, COLO. 

Mr. Casaday. Mr. Chairman, I am of Senator Shafroth's coji- 
stituency, and represent the National Alfalfa Millers' Association. 
We are largely farmers as well as manufacturers of alfalfa meal. In 
fact, I liad the privilege of practically building the first alfalfa mill. 

The Chairman. You do not want alfalfa meal included in the in- 
hibited stuff? 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 95 

]Mr. Casadav. No. sir. I wiint to say that not more than 2 per cent 
<,f the alfalfa meal is marketed by these gentlemen who represent 
the American ISfixed-Feed Association. T might also ueply to the gen- 
tleman from Texas Avho spoke here a few monRMits ago relative to 
prices. Prior to the war we paid an average of $7 a ton at the mill 
for alfalfa. To-day the alfalfa mills are ])aying the farmers $-2-2 a 
ton. 

I might also reply to Mr. Jordan along that line. He suggested that 
it was hardly practicable to feed alfalfa meal. Now. the cost of 
alfalfa meal to the farmer has gone up by the amount of the freight 
to New York to-daA', which is $1"2 a ton, i)lus $7 a ton which we have 
to pay to the maniifacturer of bags, which come from Calcutta, and 
plus to-day the ditference between $2 and $10 paid for labor in 
Colorado. " That is what makes th.e relative ditference between the 
cost of alfalfa four yeai-s ago and the cost of alfalfa to the gentle- 
man from Texas to-day. 

The Chairman; Ycni say you pr.y the farmer $-22 a ton for alfalfa? 

Mr. Casaday. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. What do vou get for the meal? 

Mr. Casaday. The hay to-day brings $31 a ton at Kansas City, and 
J think the meal is bringing $38 a ton at Kansas City, in bags. 

The Chairman. What do you get? 

Mr. Casaday. $38 a ton at Kansas City, plus the pnce of bags, 
plus the manufacturing costs, and the freight from Kansas City, 
Senator. 

Our season is right on ; this is the busy season of the year, and it 
is impossible for us to conti-act witli the American feed manufac- 
turers if they do not know what is going to become of this amend- 
ment at this time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ward, how long do you want? 

Kepresentative HAr(.KN. There are a number of gentlemen here 
who desire to be heard. 

The Chairman. I understand. Judge Ward wanted to appear on 
a different phase of the subject. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, we gave up our time < n accou.nt of the 
testimony of the proponents, and also to let in outside interests. We 
only had one speaker this morning, and this afternoon have only h^ad 
the privilege of cross-examining. 

The Chairman. Oh, you had four tliis afternoon. 

Mr. Abbott. We have not bud a single speaker this aftei-noon. We 
have not, as manufacturers, had an oj)portunity to be heai'd. These 
other gentlemen are independent interests. 

The Chairman. I think two have been heard this afternoon — more 
than have been heard in favor of the bill. 

Mr. Abbott. They did not represent the manufacturing interests, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, as I understand it, you and Mr. Chapin did. 

Mr. i^BBOTT. Mr. Chapni has not up to this time had an oppor- 
tunity to give your committee the digest of what he has to deliver. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to have you file that Avith the 
committee. I do not want to continue this hearing to-morrow, as I 
have another hearing in the morning. 

Mr. Abbott. We certainly would like to have a little more time to 
consider this to-morrow. We have not had ample time on our part. 



96 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The Chairman. I can not possibly be with you to-morrow. It 
seems to me you could file briefs as to the rest of it. Mr. Abbott 
appeared this mornin":, and Senator Shafroth, and Senator Reed, 
and Senator Kellogg: this afternoon there have been three men from 
Massachusetts, one man from New Jersey, and Mr. Chapin has inter- 
jected more than anybody else has said in the whole time, excepting 
Mr. Abbott, and, it seems to me, the different phases have been gone 
over pretty Avell. I do not care to hear a dozen millers myself. 

Mr. Abbott. That is just the point. Senator. You fail to grasp the 
fact that this is an industry of very far-reaching importance and is 
a vital thing to this country. We have come here from a great 
distance, and we most respectfully ask the privilege of coming back 
here to-morrow or the day following with an opportunity of pre- 
senting the arguments that we have not had time to present to-day. 

The Chairman. You know I told you the other day, Mr. Abbott, 
I wanted to limit this to one or two men on the different phases of the 
question. Now, three men have appeared on the manufacturers' 
point of view. 

Representative Haugen. All seem to be agreed that there should be 
legislation. It seems that everybody is determined that it shall be 
disposed of and that there shall be legislation along those lines. They 
are all in favor of the legislation. Now then, they ought to suggest 
amendments. If they are not in favor of it as presented here but in 
favor of it in some different form, they ought to proi^ose amendments 
or to give suggestions, so that we may have something to work on. 
If this amendment does not meet the views of some of them, let 
them indicate what is desired. 

STATEMENT OF ME. R. W. CHAPIN, PEESIDENT, CHAPIN & CO., 
HAMMOND, INB. 

Mr. Chairman, as far as possible all parts of cereal plants suitable 
for human use should be extracted a^nl the residues left for cattle. 
To obtain the highest economy and efficiency necessity requires that 
food materials be u'^ed, first, for human food: second, for animal 
food ; third, for fertilizer. 

Fundamentally tliis is correct, for we can got the most value out 
of the feed stuff if avo food it directly to hui^ an beings. Such ma- 
terials as can not be u-ed for human food, as. for example, those that 
are coarse aiul fibrous, ea i be f^d to animals to produce man's food, 
such as meat, milk, and eggs. Milling and manufacturing processes 
divide grain into two parts, the o}ie suitable for man, the other 
suitable for farm animals. For example, oats yield oatmeal, 80 
per cent of which is digestible by man, and oat feed, which is about 
."iO per cent digestible by animals and not at all by man. This oat 
feed, far from being worthless, is thus converted into food for man 
by the cow, steer, or sheep. It happens tliat the cereal mills, the oil 
mills, (he sugar factories, produce very large quantities of by-prod- 
ucts, which are not themselves digestible bv the human organi'^^m, 
but wh^ch may be transformed into human food by being fed to live 
stock. Most of these by-products are not in such physical condition 
as to be readily fed to live stock. They require milling, mixing, or 
processing of some sort. Molasses is difficult to transport or handle, 
becau; e it is liquid and sticky. Oat feed or oat hulls is dry, dusty, 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 97 

and unpalatable when fed alone. It is, therefore, mixed with grain 
or molasses. 

Screenings, which are largely shrunken grains and hard seeds, re- 
quire difficult grinding, but become a useful animal food when 
ground into meal. They are nearly equal in value to any of the 
coarse grains. Cottonseed meal is too concentrated to feed alone 
without the risk of injury. Consequently, there has grown up a 
tremendous industry, whose business is the milling, processing, and 
mixing of these by-product materials in such a fashion as to make . 
the greatest possible amount of them available for the production 
of human food by way of the animal organism. Several millions 
of tons of these mixed feeds are produced and sold annually in this 
country, and a corresponding amount of human food in the form of 
corn, wheat, oats, and barley is thus saved for use directly by human 
beings. Molasses can not be used satisfactorily, except when mixed 
with some absorbent material, such as oat feed or clipped oat by- 
product. Oat feeds and screenings can not be used without adding 
either some grain product or molasses to make them palatable. The 
farmer can not, as a rule, do this preparation himself, because it 
requires either elaborate mechanical equipment or a large amount of 
hand labor. Considerably more than 600,000 tons of molasses feed 
are produced annually. Probably half of the products used in these 
feeds would have to be wasted just as they were in the past, except for 
the facilities of the numerous large centralized mixing plants that 
now conserve them. We are not liere to argue for the use of any 
worthless material. The present Federal law makes it possible to 
prevent their use. We are here to urge that you do not forbid the 
use of any material which has feeding value— that has such value 
that when fed to animals it can be converted by them into human 
food. 

Wc do not want to be understood as basing this appeal on the 
present exigent food conditions. It is an appeal against a waste of 
food, an appeal which we have violated at no time. 

The present Federal law absolutely prohibits the use of deleterious 
substances or products having little or no feeding value. Practically 
all States have stringent feed-inspection laws, conferring full police 
powers to the food-control officials, so that the hnvs may be enforced. 
Every State law expressly commands the masiufacturer or seller to 
place a legible brand on the package, with a statement of the chemical 
analysis and a list of every ingredient contained therein. The Fed- 
ertil law provides a heavy punishment for misbranding, so that any 
statements made in compliance with State laws are carefully scruti- 
nized by the Federal authorities. Thus no shipment of feed can 
escape either Federal or State control, or in most cases both of them. 
It has been frequently charged that the manufacturer of mixed feeds 
puts together high-priced materials with low-priced, and for the mix- 
ture charges the highest price. This is not true. To illustrate: A 
manufacturer making a stock feed composed of 80 per cent corn meal 
and 20 per cent oat feed figures his cost as follows, using arbitrary 
prices: 

20 per cent oat feed at $20 equals ,$4 

SO per cent corn meal at $65 equals 52 

Total cost 56 

81413—18 7 



98 ADULTEKATTON OF MIXED FEEDS. 

To this must be added the cost of sacks, mixing, selling, and profit. 
By this you can see that the farmer pays for each ingredient its mar- 
ket value, plus a fair charge for service rendered. 

In order that you may have in mind not generalities but figures, 
I want to give you the percentages of digestible nutrients in a num- 
ber of feed materials. These figures are taken from Henry & Morri- 
son's Feeds and Feedings, which is a recognized authoritative work 
on the subject. The figures of percentages of digestible nutrients 
represent not laboratory tests, but the results of actual feeding ex- 
periments performed by various State experiment stations, and in 
most cases are averages of a large number of such tests: 

Per cent. 

Corn 83 

Wheat 80 

Oats 70 

Barlev 79 

Oat feed 51. 1 

Cottonseed hulls 37 

Alfalfa 51. 6 

Flax shives ." 37. 8 

Oats straw 45. 6 

Sorghum bagasse 54. 2 

The oat feed given in this list is the oatmeal mill by-product, 
the form in which oat hulls occur as a result of the oat milling 
process. Oat hulls alone, as far as I am aware, are never sold. Oat 
feed is a mixture of oat hulls, with other by-products of the oat mill- 
ing process — oat shorts, oat middlings, etc. The flax shives shown in 
the above list are substantially the same as the flax by-product men- 
tioned in the Gore amendment. 

From these figures you will see that oat feed has five-sevenths as 
much digestible nutrient as oats and five-eighths as much corn. Are 
you gentlemen going to forbid the use of such a product? But per- 
haps you feel that you should prohibit the use of flax shives and cot- 
tonseed hulls, which contain only 37 per cent of digestible nutriment? 

The distillers, who feed large numbers of cattle on distillery wet 
grains, have for years past purchased thousands of tons of these two 
alleged worthless materials to feed to cattle in connection with their 
distillery by-product. Does this indicate that these materials are 
worthless? Can you believe that the Peoria distillers ship cottonseed 
hulls from Louisinana and flax shives from Minnesota for any other 
reason than because the feeding of them to their cattle proves profit- 
able? In the face of these facts, is it possible to justify a law pro- 
hibiting the use of these products or of any other material of proved 
feeding value? 

A careful estimate by competent authorities of the annual produc- 
tion of some of the feedstuffs named in this bill, which have an es- 
timated value determined and recognized by all agricultural colleges, 
shows as follows: 

Tons. 

Oat feeds 400, 000 

Screenings 300,000 

Alfalfa meal 300, 000-400. 000 

Molasses 300, 000 

Clipped oat bv-product 200, 000 

Cottonseed hulls (1916 figures) 968,000 

2,246, 000 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 99 

We have considered these products only because accurate figures 
were available and to show the enormous tonnage involved, namely, 
2,468,000 tons, having a feeding value conservatively equal to 1,000,- 
000 tons of corn, and very likely more. This amount of corn would 
be worth $50,000,000 to-day. Wlio would advocate losing this im- 
mense amount of animal food by forcing it out of the market? 

The oat feeds alone are worth many millions of dollars, and were 
they not used this heavy loss Avould have to be added either to the 
price of oatmeal or deducted from the price paid to the farmer for 
his oats. The New York State College of Agriculture has announced 
that the hay crop of that State shows a shrinkage of about 1,000,000 
tons from previous estimates. All of the oat feeds produced in this 
country (and they certainly have value equal to hay), would not 
suffice to replace this loss of hay. 

The bulkiness and fibrous character of these feeds, instead of being 
something to condemn, is a virtue that is essential to a properly pre- 
pared dairy or horse feed. Oats contain 30 to 40 per cent oat hulls, 
which is one of the reasons they make such an ideal, safe food for 
the horse. This is one of the reasons that these light, bulky food 
materials are used so universally to lighten up heavy concentrated 
feeds, which are not safe to feed alone. 

In the past bran has been one of the chief feeds- in the dairy in- 
dustry and was considered absolutely necessary to lighten up corn- 
meal and similar heavy feeds. It is now so scarce we are obliged to 
use these other substitutes or have very disastrous results when we 
attempt to feed our cows without them. 

The war-time milling regulations have so reduced the production 
of wheat mill feed that there will be 514,000 tons less of this product 
produced within the present milling year. There is practically no 
wheat feed in store anywhere or available at the present time. 

In former years the production of distillers' grains averaged 200,- 
000 tons per annum. The production of brewers' grains formerly 
was 600,000 tons per annum. These dairy feeds are practically elim- 
inated. The Government estimate on the flax crop is 15,000,000 
bushels, which means a shortage of linseed oil meal of about 200,000 
tons. Last year's crop of cottonseed meal was 2,000,000 tons; this 
year's crop will be 10 per cent short, or 200,000 tons less. 

To recapitulate, we are facing a shortage for the coming year of 
600,000 tons of brewers' grains, 200,000 tons of distillers' grains, 
514,000 tons of mill feeds, 200,000 tons of oil meal, and 200,000 tons 
of cottonseed meal ; making a total shortage of 1, '714,000 tons of com- 
mercial concentrates. 

Last year there was no carry over on any of these commodities. 
All that was produced was consumed, so that we stand with a certain 
knowledge that in some way or other we must make up this enormous 
shortage in these commodities if we are to maintain last year's fig- 
ures on milk, butter, and beef production. The Gore amendment is 
not aimed at these commodities. Making up this shortage can only 
be done by the most careful conservation of every last pound of 
every by-product produced in this country that has any feeding value 
whatever. 

The mixed-feed industry submits that it is not engaged in debas- 
ing feeds, but is engaged in conserving and making useful and avail- 



100 ADULTTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

able valuable food products that have hitherto been wasted. That 
the Gore amendment is aimed at certain alleged abuses and its enact- 
ment will mean the prohibition of practically all mixed feeds, which 
would destroy the mixed-feed industry. That our mixed feeds are 
bought b}^ the farmers of their own free will and choice, and these 
farmers would be greatly handicapped if they were forced to mix 
their own feeds, which by reason of the scarcity of labor and other 
good reasons they do not desire to do. 

(Mr. Chapin subsequently submitted additional data, which are 
here printed in full, as follows:) 

Statement Intended to Show the Feeding Value of a Few of the More 
Common By-Pkoducts Feeds, by H. J. Patterson, Direbtor, Maryland 
Experiment Station, and H. J. White. 

[Extracts from Bulletin No. 168 of the Maryland Agriculture Experiment Station.] 

by-product feeds. 

Page 1 : 

The price and .scarcity of whole grain and standard cattle foods has neces- 
sitated the seeking of other .sources and the availing of every kind of material 
that animals could utilize. This condition has brought upon the market many 
by-products which previously were considered waste products. 

Some of these by-products are found on the market in their natural condi- 
tion, but many of them are finely ground and are used in the mixed feeds. In 
many mixed feeds it is impossible to determine the kind or nature of the ma- 
terial which has been used to make them. 

Some people have taken the position that many of the by-products on the 
market were nearly worthless as a cattle food and that the placing of them in 
mixed foods should be regarded with suspicion, or even as a fraud. While 
there is a very limited amoimt of data available which gives definite knowledge 
as to the real value of these by-products feeds, yet on the other hand there is 
no doubt but that many of them have a food value which should be utilized. 
Many plants and seeds which are commonly considered as worthless weeds 
show by analysis a high food value, and it is well known that some animals eat 
them in preference to cultivated plants and thrive on them. 

The making of mixed feeds or rations is a legitimate business, which is 
really backed by more substantial arguments than the making of mixed fer- 
tilizers. The feeding of a given kind of animals for a specific purpose is a 
more constant factor than the feeding of crops which are to be grown on a 
great variety of soils and under many conditions. The object sought in making 
a mixed feed should be not only for the purpose of procuring a proper " bal- 
ance " or relation of the food components, but the aim should also be to 
improve the palatibility of the ration. The palatability of a food is probably 
as essential for animals as for man. 

The real value of a food or ration depends upon what the animals get out 
of it. What the anin\als get out of a food or ration depends chiefly upon its 
palatibility, composition, digestibility, and assimilation. It is possible for some 
plant constituents to stimulate iuid others to retard both digestion and assimi- 
lation. These facts make a greater knowledge of the effect of plant alkaloids 
very desirable, and especially important in considering many by-product feeds. 

GRAIN screenings. 

Page 2: There are vast quantities of screenings derived from the cleaning 
of grains for use in making human food products. These screenings will vary 
greatly, according to their source. They vary according to the kind of grain, 
the farm, and the season. Probably no two lots would ever be .iust the same, 
but yet, the pooling of large lots of grains in the mills has a tendency to make 
the screenings more uniform than they would be otherwise. The screenings 
used in this experiment came from Western mills and represented material 
which enters largely into some kinds of mixed feeds which are extensively 
sold in Eastern markets. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 



101 



Sutnmaji/ shou-in<j the average cocfficioit.s nf (liacxtihilifii obtained hi the 
experiments, together with those of some oflier comiiuiu feeds for com- 
parison. 



Crude 
protein. 



Crude 
fiber. 



Flax plant by-product 

Flax plant by-product and molasses 

Ground-grain screenings 

Buck vheat middlings 

Distiller's grains 

Oat hulls 

Wheat bran (average of all tests) — 
Brewer's grains (average of all tests) 
Corn meal (average of all tests) 



Per cent. 
a3.43 
62.50 
65. 47 
90.76 
43.19 
.50. 1 
77.0 
79.0 
60.0 



Per cent. 
48.32 
31.84 
17.48 
30.89 
22.26 
59.9 
41.0 
53.0 



Prom the above table it will be seen that tironnd-srain screenings is more 
digestible than distiller's grains, but not quite as digesti))le as wlieat bran. 

Result maintenance test — bull. 



Date. 



July 
July 
July 
July 
July 
July 
July 
July 
Julv 
July 
July 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug, 
Aug. 
Aug, 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug. 
Aug, 



21 


705 


22 


681 


23 




24 


7i6 


25 




26 




27 


690 


28 A... 




29 




30 . .. . .. 




31 


690 


1 




2 




3 : 


702 


4 




5 




6 




7 




8 




9 




10 




11 


720 


12 




13 




14 




15 




16 




17 




18 




19 




20 


746 


21 




22 . 




23 




24 . .. 


• 752 


25 




26 




27 




28 


752 


29 




30 




31 


734 



Weight. 



Pounds. 



Oat 
hulls 
fed. 



10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
12.0 
16.0 

5.0 
10.22 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 
10.0 

6.0 
12.0 
13.3 
19.0 

6.0 
10.0 
10.0 
15.0 
16.0 
10.0 

5.0 

5.0 
10.5 
10.0 
10.0 
15.0 
15.0 
10.0 
11.0 
10.0 
10.0 



Hay. 



Pounds. 



7.5 
6.2 
8.7 
8.7 
10.8 
10.2 



10.4 



At the end of the 41 days' period the bull had gained 29 pounds in weight. 

During the first 9 days, however, he received hay in addition to oat hulls, 
and when hay was discontinued he had up to this lost apparently 15 pounds. 
This was an error, probably due to his having been watered shortly before the 
initial weighing. For the remainder of the time he gradually improved on 
an exclusive oat-hull diet, and at the end of the period was in excellent con- 
dition in every respect. 



102 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

STATEMENT INTENDED TO SHOW THE BKANDING KEQUIRED ON PACKAGES OF FEEDING 
STUFFS SOLD, OFFERED, OR EXPOSED FOR SALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO- 
VISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAW OF NEW YORK STATE RELATIVE TO THE SALE 
AND INSPECTION OF FEEDING STUFFS, AND WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME 
REQUIREMENTS EFFECTIVE IN MOST OF THE 4 2 STATES NOW HAVING FEED- 
INSPECTION LAWS. 

[Extract from p. 614 of New York Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 441, 
entitled " Inspection of Feeding Stuffs." Information requinid to and appearing on 
packages from which sample No. 01S18 was drawn for purposes of analysis. 1 

The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago, 111. : 

Schumacher feed — . per cent. 

Crude protein 10. 

Crude fat 3.2 

Crude fiber 10. 

Ingredients. — Ground corn, ground barley, liominy feed, wheat flour, cotton- 
seed meal, ground puffed rice, ground puffed wheat, wheat middlings with 
ground screenings not exceeding mill run. oatmeal mill by-products (oat 
.middlings, oat liulls, oat shorts), and one-half of 1 per cent salt. 

Tlie result of analysis as slio\\n l)y bulletin above mentioned was as follows: 

Per cent.. 

Crude protein . 11. 3 

Crude fat 3. S 

Crude fiber 9. 7 

Ingredients.~As certified. 

STATEMENT OF DR. C. CASSIUS WAY, CHIEF VETERINARIAN, 
BORDEN CONDENSED MILK CO., NEW YORK. 

Dr. Way. Mr. Chairman, I hope you AviU consider nie as a fanner. 
I am a graduate of the Connecticut Agricultural College, of Cornell 
University, and of the New York State Veterinary College at Cor- 
nell University. For six years I was an assistant to Prof. V. A. 
Moore, now dean of the college, in the department of bacteriology 
and pathology. In 1908 I associated myself with the Borden Con- 
densed Milk Co., and at the present time am chief veterinarian, hav- 
ing supervision over the sanitary control of their milk supply and 
production of certified milk on these large dairy farms, the herds 
of which aggregate approximately 1,200 head of milch cows and 
heifers. In adclition to this, I have general supervision over the 
health and care of some 3,000 to 3,500 head of horses. 

Mixed feeds have been fed to the stock owned by our company in 
improper proportions with deleterious effect. When these animals 
were returned to a balanced ration of straight feeds their health 
and efficiency increased and improved to normal. Our reason for 
using only straight feeds of known feeding value is to eliminate 
from the rations of these animals substances that are found in cer- 
tain feeds that have very little feeding value and to us appear worth- 
less. 

It seems to me the conference is agreed that the substances enter- 
ing into the package of feed should be placed on the label. It seems 
to me that is fair to the consumer of the product. As a buyer of 
feeds, I hold no brief against the feed manufacturers, but we do buy 
feeds of known composition and of recognized feeding value. 

(Thereupon, at 6 o'clock p. m., the conference committee adjourned 
until 2.30 o'clock p. m. to-morrow, Tuesday, September 17, 1918.) 



adulteeatiojs^ of mixed feeds. 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1918. 

United States Senate and House of Representatives, 

Committees of Conference of the 
Committees on Agriculture and Forestry, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee of conference on the bill H. R. 11945 met, pur- 
suant to adjournment, in the committee room of the House Com- 
mittee on Indian Aifairs, Capitol, at 2.30 o'clock p. m., Senator 
Thomas P. Gore presiding. 

President of the Senate committee : Senator Gore. 
Present of the House committee: Representatives Lever (chair- 
man), Lee, Candler, and Haugen. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, whom would you like to hear first? 
Mr. Abbott. We would like to have you gentlemen hear Mr. Gray. 

STATEMENT OF MR. J. M. GRAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, QUAKER 
OATS CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 

Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, my name is J. M. Gray, and I am gen- 
eral counsel of the Quaker Oats Co., 1600 Railway Exchange Build- 
ing, Chicago, 111. The Quaker Oats Co., Mr. Chairman, is a member 
of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. Now, the Ameri- 
can Feed Manufacturers' Association comprises, roughly, some 175 
manufacturers of compounded feeds. There are other manufacturers 
of the same kind of feeding stuff who do not belong to the associa- 
tion. However, of course, every member of that association acts in 
his business independently according to his own dictates, and there 
is, therefore, an immense amount of competition in the business. 

It is an industry which has grown for 25 to 30 years, and perhaps 
in the aggregate now assumes the proportions of some several millions 
of tons of feeding stuff annually. You can readily see what a vast 
amount of capital must be invested in this industry. I do not pre- 
tend to say how much — it would run into many, many millions. The 
association has no figures on invested capital, the association has 
no figures on exact tonnage produced and sold, the association has no 
figures of any kind on any branch or end of the business of any one 
of its members. 

The American Feed Manufacturers' Association feels most keenly 
that the proposed amendment by Senator Gore is of such vast im- 
portance to its industry and to the country at large that it ought to 
have the utmost consideration. The entire subject of the production 
of the feeding stuff and the distribution of feeding stuff is so large 
and is so complicated and has so many angles that in a short hearing 

103 



104 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

we feel that we can not possibly do what we ovight to do for the 
members of the committee. 

Yesterday's session — if I may say so, and, first, it is entirely with- 
out any criticism ; it is merely a statement of fact as I saw it — was 
begun by the feed manufacturers with an opening statement. Those 
in favor of the bill were then heard : some outsiders were then heard ; 
and there was a good deal of mere statement which got into the 
hearing — there was no way to prevent that that I know of, in the 
world. A good deal of it was derogatory to the industry. But we 
do not feel that we can or ought to meet those statements simply by 
other statements. We would like to have this bill considered or some 
bill of a general character that might perhaps be a little more com- 
prehensive — we would like to have it considered at considerable 
length in order that we might have an opportunity to afford the 
committee a chance to see the constructive side of this whole subject. 

NoAv. some things were said yesterday about there being plenty of 
roughage, and so there was not any need of roughage in the feed, 
or not nuu'h need, or something like that. The feed manufacturers 
know something about that. But what is the use, Mr. Chairman 
and gentlemen, of their simply coming up and stating that they 
know in this section and that section and the other section there is 
a shortage of roughage. They are met already by statements to the 
contrary; they may be met by other statements. They can produce, 
if they have the opportunity and the time to do so — positive testi- 
mony to that effect, which I think will be entirely convincing. 

The Chairman. To what effect? I did not quite get your point. 

Mr. Gray. To the effect that there is a shortage of roughages in 
various parts of the country which, of course, is a most material need. 

Then, there was another subject somewhat touched upon yester- 
day — the question of the shortage of mill feed. You understand 
we are not mill-feed manufacturers. We are compound-feed manu- 
facturers. There was, as I say, something said about that yesterday 
to the effect that there was a great shortage in bran and other mill 
feeds. Statements were made to the contrary, and there you are 
again. We feel, with all confidence, that we can bring in testimony 
and facts if we are allowed the time, to show that there is probably 
a million tons shortage in these mill feeds. 

Then, again, while we spent some time on the second paragraph 
of section 26, to try to point out certain features of that, which 
were quite, we thought, impossible to comply with, there seemed to 
be some doubt in the minds of some of the committee and, of course, 
of some of those in favor of the bill, as to our position in regard 
to those points and our fairness, etc. That takes a good deal of 
time to explain, because it requires a considerable study of what 
is a mixed feed, how it comes about, what it is for, what is it in- 
tended to do, why the manufacturer puts out a particular kind of 
mixed feed for a particular feeding purpose, etc., and so on. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we respectfully urge upon you that 
you defer this matter until some subsequent time when it can be 
taken up in as full a hearing as is necessary properly to handle the 
subject. We realize — and, indeed, that is what w^e are most in- 
terested in — that you gentlemen of the committee must have all the 
information that there is to be obtained on this whole subject, and 
we can not do it, we can not begin to do it, in an hour nor in a few 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS, 105 

hours. That is precisely our position and our request. We think it 
is too vast a matter for the C'ongress of the TJnited States to pass 
upon without all the information that there is to be brought to bear 
on the whole subject. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gray, you say there is a scarcity both of 
roughage and mill bv-products ? 

Mr. Gray. Of mill feeds? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. That naturally uiakes the price high, 
does it not ? 

Mr. Gray. I said that the American Feed Manufacturers' Asso- 
ciation had no doubt whatsoever that they could bring forward the 
facts to demonstrate that; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. 1 might say, Mr. Gray, I do not think it is neces- 
sary to demonstrate that. I think everybody would admit the fact. 
However, that had no reference to the object of this bill. What I 
was asking was as to your statement that there is a scarcity not only 
of mill feed but of roughage as well? 

Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. - 

The Chairman. That naturally makes the. price high, does it not? 

Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you not think it is all the more important, 
then, that the farmer or consumer should get his money's worth for 
whatever he does buy ? 

Mr. Gray. Of course that is always important. 

The Chairman. You have no objection to that, have you? 

Mr. Gray. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have no objection to this amendment if 
it is limited to the accomplishment of that purpose? 

Mr. Gray. Most assuredly not. 

The Chairman. How many tons of compounded food does the 
Quaker Oats Co. turn out? 

Mr. Gray. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Do you know what the net earnings of the Quaker 
Oats Co. was last year? 

Mr. Gray. Not with accuracy. 

The Chairman. Could you give it approximately? 

Mr. Gray. Yes; I think approximately $5,000,000. 

The Chairman. And w^hat percentage was that on its capital 
investment ? 

Mr. Gray. I should say that was about 18 per cent. 

The Chairman. Of course they have a very large output of oat 
hulls, do they not? 

Mr. Gray. We do not call them, Senator, oat hulls. 

That brings me to another point. There is a great deal of diver- 
sity of opinion on the side of the opposition and in the minds of the 
members of the committee on the terms even in this bill. You could 
take an hour or more, and I think more, just explaining the terms of 
the bill. 

The Chairman. What do you call the materials if you do not 
call them according to the terms of the bill ? 

Mr. Gray. It is oat feed, or oatmeal by-product. 

The Chairman. Do you call that a concentrated feed ? 

Mr. Gray. I do not know what a concentrated feed is, sir. 



106 ADULTEBATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The Chairman. What is the protein and fat value of oats? 

Mr, Gray. I do not bear it in mind, Senator. 

Representative Lever. What do you think about a legislative sit- 
uation of this kind, where a bill passes a body unanimously, and 
then as soon as a thing gets into controversy the members of that 
unanimous body promptly appear before the committee to protest 
against their own action, as they did yesterday ? Do you think that 
indicates a very wise proposition? 

Mr. Gray. You place me. sir, in an embarrassing position. I do 
not know how far I can go. 

Representative Lever. You are not much more embarrassed than 
the House conferees are. 

The Chairman. Maybe I can help you out of your embarrass- 
ment. It shows that some constituents engaged in the business to 
be on their back. 

Mr. Gray. The feed manufacturers' association is not on its back. 

Representative HauGen. How do you account for the scarcitv of 
feedf 

Mr. Gray. The scarcity of mill feeds? 

Representative Haugen. What we are discussing now. 

Mr. Gray. Mill feeds. There are three explanations, if I under- 
stand it. Mark you. Mr. Haugen, I do not pose as an expert in this, 
but as I understand it. there are three reasons for the condition. One 
is the unusual amount of export shipment of the whole grains. 

Representative Haugen. Have you the figures on that? Could 3^du 
give the figures? . 

Mr. Gray. No; I could not. That is another phase Avith which I 
am not entirely familiar. 

Representative Haugen. The export of what grain? 

Mr. Gray. The wheat. 

Representative Haugen. Is that largely in excess of pvevious ex- 
ports ? 

Mr. Gray. I so understand it. I do not make the statement un- 
reservedly. That is one of the very things that requires a good deal 
of study. 

Represfentative Haugen. My understanding is that there was just 
as much flour ground last year as was ground in any other year — 
350.000.000 bushels being ground last year. 

Mr. Gray. The second reason for it is that, as I understand — also 
subject to proof — that there is a vast quantity of that being taken 
directly by the Government. 

Representative Haugen. The Government did not take the feed ; it 
took the flour. 

Mr. Gray. Xo ; the feed — the bran. 

Representative Haugen. By increasing the percentage of bran in 
flour? 

Mr. Gray. No; actually taking it from the mills for its own use. 
I understand in the neighborhood of 100,000 tons. I do not make 
that as a positive statement. I am simply a lawyer. 

And a third reason is that, as I understand it also, they do not pro- 
duce as much bran in their milling now under the new rules as they 
used to. • 

Representative Haugen. That is true. A good deal of it goes into 
the flour, but that is only a small percentage. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 107 

Mr. Gray. I imderstrtiid ; but it is 11 pounds to a barrel, and there 
are about 100,000,000 or 150,000,000 barrels produced, as I recall it. 

Eepresentative Haugen. No ; it is 118,000,000. 

Mr. Gray. Times 11. I understand it is 11 pounds to the barrel. 
All those questions, Mr. Haugen, enter vitally into this thing. 

Mr. Abbott. It would amount to 600,000 tons. 

The Chairman. Who is the present president of the Quaker Oats 
Co.? 

Mr. Gray. Henry P. Crowell. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chapman used to be? 

Mr. Gray. No; Mr. Chapman was never president of the Quaker 
Oats Co. 

The Chairman. He was connected with it. 

Mr. Gray. A Mr. Chapman was; perhaps it is the same one you 
have reference to. 

Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get this 
cleared up about the shortage. I have not got that clear in my mind 
as to why there is a scarcity of feeds. My understanding is that 
there was as much wheat ground last year and that we had just 
as much bran as we ever had, with the exception of the small percent- 
age going into the flour. 

Mr. Gray. How small a percentage does that make? 

Mr. Abbott. One hundred and eighteen million barrels is equiv- 
alent to 649,000 tons on a shortage basis of 11 pounds per barrel 

Eepresentative Haugen. I dare say it is a very small percentage. 
I had not figured that out. 

Mr. Gray. Then, again, as I understand, the Government is taking 
somewhere around 75.000 tons for its own use in the Army. 

Representative Haugen. They purchased it, of course. 
- Mr. Gray. Yes. 

Representative Haugen. That does not reduce the supply, does it? 

Mr. Gray. It does reduce the supply to other users. 

Representative Haugen. It does not reduce the production? 

Mr. Gray. No ; I am only talking about the supply. 

Representative Haugen. The fact is that as much was produced 
last year as was any other year? 

Mr. Gray. Production? 

Representative Haugen. Yes. 

Mr. Gray. I do not know about that. I really can not answer that. 
I was talking of supply for use, not production of flour. 

Representative Haugen. I take it, there has not been as much bran 
available for manufacturers of food as we had in the past, since the 
Government fixed the price of bran at $36.60, and that instead of 
selling the bran to millers they did not sell the bran but mixed it 
with a cheaper product and reduced its quality and sold it at double 
the price. 

Mr. Gray. On that point, again, that would be a statement that 
might be good. The feed manufacturers might make a statement 
to the contrary, but if they were to say, no ; what is the use of stand- 
ing up and saying no wiien the subject is one subject to proof. 

Representative Haugen. Have you been able to buy any bran from 
the mills ? 

Mr. Gray. Have we? 



108 ADULTERATION OF MIXED BEEDS. 

Representative Haugen. Yes. 

Mr. Gray. I do not know. We make flour. I do not know whether 
we buy any bran or not. The feed manufacturers are complaining^ 
that they can not but it. 

Representative Haugen. That they can not buy the bran? 

Mr. Gray. Yes. 

Representative Haugen. But that does not reduce the quantities. 
The millers are mixing it instead of the manufacturers. 

Mr. Gray. That may be. I can not answer that. 

Representative Haugen. What I was trying to geat cleared up was 
about the supply. It has been alleged here by several that there is a 
great scarcity of feed. 

Mr. Gray. Yes, exactly, and that is a very important point, Mr. 
Haugen. 

Representative Haugen. It is. yes. 

Mr. Gray. And I think that it is one of the main points in the 
whole thing — at least, it is a very important point. 

Representative Haugen. The statement was made by several par- 
ties here, but no one explained it. 

Mr. Gray. I do not know how to explain it. I am perfectly frank 
to say that, but at the same time if it is attempted to be explained 
somebody else is very likely to refute it, which will mean. Where do 
we get ? We can come in and show it to be a fact in the way that 
such things ought to be shown before this connnittee which is trying 
to do something in a constructive fashion. 

Representative Haugen. It is also to be expected that when a 
certain thing is alleged it can be proven also. 

Mr. Gray. That is it. There were statements made yesterdaj^, and 
you know how it went — statement after statement; and what can 
you do about it? 

Representative Haugen. But you have no explanation as to why 
the shortage exists? 

Mr. Abbott. Would you like to have that one question straightened 
out in your mind, Mr. Haugen? If you would, we would like the 
privilege of having Mr. Chapin explain it to you for that purpose. 

Mr. Chapin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in answering Mr. 
Haugen's question I will say that I am a manufacturer of mixed 
feeds, and I do not use any of the products named in this bill, so far 
as I know. I use simply high-grade materials, and bran is an essen- 
tial part of that. I have been in this business for about 20 years, 
and for the past six months we have been practically unable to get 
any bran. It has really injured the manufacture of our feed in many 
ways. So I made a careful investigation, and I find that the bran is 
so cheap that there is a tremendous demand for it in the West, and 
that it does not come East. It is sold in the West. The western 
farmers are getting it, but the eastern farmers do not get it. The 
farmer in Kansas comes to the mill and says, " I am selling you my 
wheat at a very reasonable price, and I must have my bran back at 
the Government price," and he gets that cheap bran in the West, and 
it is not coming East. 

Then, there has also been a drought in the Southwest, which is 
taking a large part of it. I have not seen any bran come from 
Kansas to Chicago in a long time. We have been compelled to cut 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 109 

the percentage down to 75 per cent, and I see other manufacturers in 
the room who are in the same boat we are. I think that accounts for 
the shortage of bran. 

Rut there is another thing that is going on right at the present 
time. The flour millers tell me that they can not sell their flour. 
Some oi them have been milling and putting it into warehouses; 
and the farmers got the bran, and the feed dealer has it. They are 
at the end of their rope. They have got to sell more flour, anci the 
public will not buy it. I have talked with prominent millers of 
Buffalo and Syracuse and have inquired of some little millers in 
New York State. Some of them said they would have to stop buy- 
ing wheat from the farmers. 

The Chairman. What explanation of that? 

Mr. Chapin. Why should the baker buy flour when the price is 
fixed? Last year flour was scarce; this year it seems to be plentiful. 
A man will not buy street-car tickets nor postage stamps because 
the price is fixed. They do not want to stock up with it. Somebody 
has to carry the wheat or the flour. 

Representative Haugen. That has been going on the whole year? 

Mr Chapin. I might say, for your information 

Representative Haugen. The Government has been commandeer- 
ing flour, except a sack or two for each family. 

Mr, Chapin. Last year w^e had to export flour. I am not a miller 
or a flour man. I do not know more about it than comes to my 
knowledge in trading. Last year, toward the end of the crop, 
wheat was all exhausted, and we went on substitutes, and during 
March, April, May, and June very little wheat was ground. But we 
have come into the fall with no wheat feeds. 

Representative Haugen. We are trying to clear up the shortage 
of feed. 

Mr. Chapin. One thing is the small grinding to the present time. 
There have been no accumulations from the summer. In the sum- 
mer we always lay in a supply of feed — the country does — the feed 
dealer and farmer. There is not much demand for dairy feeds in 
May and June, and then is wdien we get our surplus for fall use. 
We are now in the fall and there is no surplus because this summer 
it was not being produced. 

Representative Haugen. We must assume that the people are 
going to consume as much flour this year as last year. 

Mr. Chapin. They will after awhile. 

Representative Haugen. Then this scarcity is temporary? 

Mr. Chapin. It is going to come in the winter, wiien w'e need it, 
and in the spring, when wq do not need it, the demand for flour w-ill 
come in again, and in the meantime the mills feel very badly because 
they can not grind enough to pay expenses. You have got to run 
a mill full time to make it pay. So they are going to lose money, 
but they are not producing bran. 

The Chairman. Who else have you to speak, Mr. Abbott? 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, along the lines that Mr. Gray has 
just talked to you, in reference to the feed business, I can only add 
my reiteration of his statement. The problem is entirely too large 
for us in a limited time to attempt to cover in a comprehensive man- 
ner, and I feel satisfied that we can not do the subject justice and 



110 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

can not present sufficient facts and evidence for proper consideration 
to your committee; and. further, we do not feel that under the cir- 
cumstances and at short notice we can add anything to what has 
ah'eady been said. 

Kepresentative Lever. That closes your side, Mr. Abbott ? 

Mr. Abbott. Yes. 

Mr. Lasater. If it please the committee, I Avould like to address 
you for 10 or 15 minutes. 

The Chairman. We will hear you for that length of time. 

STATEMENT OF MR. E. C. LASATER, FALFURRIAS DAIRY CO., FAL- 
FTJRRIAS, TEX.— Resumed. 

Mr. Lasater. Mr. Lever, I would like to revert to the question j^ou 
asked several times yesterday, and that is this: You seemed to be 
convinced that the statement that these gentlemen had made that 
mixed-feed business enables the country as a whole to economize 
on feed and to utilize large quantities of feed that otherwise would 
be wasted. I think that is a mistake. 

Representative Lever. I did not state that as a fact. It was a ques- 
tion in my own mind. 

Mr. Lasater. I would like for you to hear me just one moment on 
that point. You take these low-grade feeds that these gentlemen 
mix with feeds of good value and the only way they can enter into 
economic consumption is near the point of origin. 

You take the oat hulls in Illinois — and I want to call your atten- 
tion to the fact that Illinois has a large excess quantity of grain pro- 
duced in that State and the adjoining States — and it is economic and 
cheap and practical to use that feed in Illinois to finish cattle rather 
than to ship this feed to drouth-stricken ranges in Texas. The only 
man who would ship and who could afford to ship would be the 
man who had a high-priced herd and who was willing to sacrifice a 
part of its value to carry it through. But to make dairy products 
or to make meat that can be sold on the market he can not afford 
to ship that stuff from Illinois to New York and Massachusetts or 
from Illinois to Texas. 

Representative Lever. The point I had in mind was this, Mr. Lasa- 
ter: You have a very severe drouth in Texas, now have you not? 

Mr. Lasater. Yes, sir. 

Representative Leat:r. You had one this year? 

Mr. Lasater. Yes, sir. 

Representative Lever. You had a bill pending before the Commit- 
tee on Agriculture of the House asking a very large appropriation 
for the purpose of buying feed with which to carry over the cattle 
of Texas. The point in my mind was whether or not you desired to 
ship this stuff in bulk — raw cottonseed hulls or raw^ alfalfa — or 
whether you would rather have it in this concentrated mixture ? 

Mr. Lasater. There are a variety of angles from which to look at 
that. We prefer and can only buy to good advantage where we- have 
the roughage. You take the ranges where they are feeding to sustain 
life, and they would not buy any one of these mixed feeds: they 
would buy a maximum of roughage and just enough cottonseed meal 
to enable the cattle to digest the roughage. These gentlemen do not 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS, 111 

ship their products to drouth-stricken Texas to feed beef cattle that 
]nay be suffering for lack of feed. This mixed feed is too high priced. 
Those ranchmen would buy rice, wheat, and oats straw, and then feed 
with that the minimum amount of cottonseed products. That is 
the economic way to pull a herd through, and that is what we have 
been doing where it has been possible. 

I do not care to take up any more time on that, but I would like to 
answer any questions and give fuller information if desired. But 
I believe if you go into it you will find that a correct statement of 
facts as far as economic use of these mixed feeds is concerned. 

Representative Lever. Mr. Lasater, as I understand your testi- 
mony yesterday afternoon, you were not complaining so much about 
the carriage of stuif which these gentlemen ship as you were com- 
plaining about the economics of the whole situation ; is that your 
view ? 

Mr. Lasater. I am complaining chiefly on being forced to buy the 
stuff in this shape — I speak for the dairy interests. 

Representative Lever, You do not complain of the stuff. You 
simply complain of their forcing you through the economics of the 
matter to buy this mixed feed when you ought to buy your feed 
cheaper ? 

Mr. Lasater. And then, also, much of this stuff is absolutely in- 
jurious. 

Representative Lever, What, for instance? 

Mr, Lasater. Recently, within the last month, I have made an au- 
tomobile trip through Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York. 
I have seen many herds of dairy cattle. I have talked to some dairy- 
men and to the heads of these various organizations, and without 
exception they told me that they had wintered worse than they have 
ever had. They expressed the opinion that mixed feed is one of 
the causes. Dairy herds of the country are in bad shape to-day, 
worse than I ever" saw them at this season. They told me that they 
had Avintered poorly, I think much of the ingredients these gentle- 
men are putting into this feed is absolutely loading the animal with 
stuff it can not use. 

Representative Lever. How long since you have been to your ranch 
in Texas, Mr. Lasater? 

Mr. Lasater. Forty-five days. 

Representative Lever. How is the cattle situation is Texas ? 

Mr. Lasater. Genererally, it is bad. There are spots where there 
is some alleviation. Luckily, I happen to be in one of the better 
spots. 1 do not mean to say my situation is good; it is not. I am 
in such shape that if we get winter rains I will get through, but 
many people can not get through. 

Representative Lever. Is there demand for Federal aid in that 
section ? 

Mr. Lasater. My community has made no request for aid. We 
are taking care of ourselves. But, generally speaking, something 
has got to be done or those areas will be abandoned. The people 
have gone to the end of their rope in many localities. 

Representative Lever. Your argument is that inasmuch as the 
cattle of the country have come through the winter worse than ever 
before, therefore it is due to the mixed feeds ? 



112 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Lasater. I can not prove that, and I have not come in contact 
with a man who could prove it. But they say that is a fact, and that 
my observation shows them to be in worse condition at this time of 
the year than ever before — ^I am speaking of dairy cattle through 
these various States. 

Representative Levek. Do most of the dairymen use this mixed 
feed? 

Mr. Lasater. I would say the bulk of them tlo, because it is easier 
to get. Some men who can buy in larger quantities, and insist on 
getting what they want 

Representative Lever (interposing). Is there any class of cattle 
growers who are any more intelligent than the dairy cattle growers? 

Mr. Lasater. No; I w^ould say that upon the whole the dairy in- 
terests — of course, tJie large ranch interests of the country possibly 
have had better advantages and better opportunities for gathering 
information. 

Representative Lever. But, as an average? 

Mr. Lasater. As an average, I think there is no higher intelli- 
gence on the farm than the dairy interests. 

Representative Lever. I was just wondering wliy they were buying 
those feeds. 

Mr. Lasater. If you will j^ermit us, we will show why they are 
buying it. Mr. Smith and Judge Ward will show that as far as 
New York State is concerned. 

Another thing, there was a desire expressed here yesterday to find 
out who demanded or requested, rather, the passage of such a bill 
as Senator Gore has introduced. On the 27th of Inst month there 
was an organization of farmers, called the National Board of Farm 
Organizations, which met in Washington. I have here three resolu- 
tions which they passed. I would like to have permission to read 
them into the record. 

Representative Lever. Before you do that, will you give the names 
of that organization? 

My. Lasater. Mr. Creasy, could you call them offliand? 

Representative Lever. Who is the president and so on? 

Mr. Lasater. Mr. Barrett, Union City, Ga., is the president; Mr. 
W. T. Creasy is chairman of the board; and I suppose a good many 
of the farm organizations of the country were represented at that 
meeting. The American National Live Stock Association was one 
of those represented. 

The Chairman. Mr. Creasy, do you know how many farm organi- 
zations were represented there? 

Mr, Creasy. I think there were about 17 farm organizations rep- 
resented. We can give you the list. 

(The list referred to w^as subsequently furnished by Mr. Creasy 
and is here printed in full, as follows:) 

farmers' organizations which participated in conference held in 
washington, d. c, august 27, 28, 29, 191s. 

1. National Farmers' Union, representatives of 17 State farmers' unions and 
many local unions. •• 

2. National Oran.iie, representatives of seven State granges and many local 
granges. 

3. National Dairy Union. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 113 

4. Farmers' National Congress. 

5. American National Live-Stock Association. 

6. Texas Cattle Raisei's' Association. 

7. Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association. 

8. Cotton States Official Advisory Marketing Board and Association of 
Farmers. 

9. National Milk Producers' Federation and representatives from member 
organizations: including United Dairy Association, Dairymen's League, Inter- 
state IMilk Producers' Association, Michigan Milk Producers' Association, Oliio 
Milk Producers' Association, Queen City Jlilk Producers' Association, Milwau- 
kee Milk Producers' Association, Association of Dairymen of California, Oregon 
Dairymen's League. 

10. National Conference on Marketing and Farm Credits. 

11. Pennsylvania Rural Progress Association. 

12. National Agricultural Organization Society. 

13. American Society of Equity. 

14. Equity Cooperative Exchange. 

15. Farmers' Eqiiity Union. 

16. The American Devon Cattle Club. 

17. Percheron Society of America. 

18. American Poultry Society. 

19. Cooperative Wholesale Society of America. 

20. Cooperative League of America. 

21. California Bean Growers' Association. 

22. Wisconsin Cheese Producers' Federation. 

23. Agricultural Committee of Southern Commercial Congress. 

24. New York Federation of Farm Bureaus. 

25. Cecilton Community Club of Maryland. 

26. West Nottingham Connniuiit.v Club of Maryland. 

27. Progressive Farmers' Club of Price, Queen Anne's County, Md. 

28. Louisiana Farmers' Association. 

Mr. Lasatek. With your permission I will read these resolutions 
[reading] : 

We favor the enactment of a law that will prohibit interstate shipment of 
any feed that does not have tag attached showing all the contents, by weight, of 
each sack. 

Inasmuch as it is evident that there is an active effort on the part of the 
feed mixers and millers of the country to take the standard feeds such as bran 
and middlings, and by mixing tliem with useless and even deleterious fillers 
and adulterations get for them a price much in excess of the market value ; 
therefore be it 

Resolved, That we instruct the National Board of Farm Organizations, if they 
find this pernicious practice still in effect, to initiate a nation-wide campaign 
against using all mixed feeds. 

Representative Lever. Your proposition seems to be one to pro- 
hibit interstate shipment of all mixed feeds. 

Mr. Lasater. Unless it can be done and conducted fairly and hon- 
estly. There are many mixed feeds that can be of great advantage 
to the live-stock producer and the milk producer, but as the business 
is handled to-day, it is a leach upon the producers of the country 
and not a benefit to either the producers or consumers. 

Another resolution reads: 

We favor such an administration and extension of power in the pure food 
law as shall provide that all foods, mixed feeds, and fertilizers sold in inter- 
state commerce either in packages or in bulk shall be labeled so that the exact 
contents shall be known, and that adequate penalties be provided for any in- 
vasion of such regulations ; and that the legislative committee of this organiza- 
tion be requested to urge upon Congress prompt action in this matter. 

Representative Haugen. Now, the contention is that that has been 
provided for in the various State laws, the labeling of the packages ? 

81413—18 8 



114 ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Lasater. I did not quite catch your question. 

Eepresentative Haugen. The contention that that has been pro- 
vided for by the State legislatures of the various States? 

Mr. Lasater. We know that if any law does provide for it, it is 
not enforced. I have talked to various men from various States, and 
I find nowhere that there is any real protection so far as the users 
of these feeds are concerned. Some of the reasons will be given by 
those who folloAv me. I am not as well posted as these other gen- 
tlemen, Avho have the facts and who have made a study of the subject. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Certain amendments have been suggested 
to this bill. Have you any amendments to suggest? 

Mr. Lasater. I would suggest, in order not to make two bites of a 
cherry, that there ought to be added to feeds, " foodstuff and fer- 
tilizers," because when you go into it that will be found necessary. 
I have made a study of the situation in New York State, and it will 
be found that the same situations obtains in respect of foods and 
fertilizers as does with regard to mixed feeds. 

Representative Haugen. Speaking for the consumers, are you sat- 
isfied with the amendment as drawn? 

Mr. Lasater. I would add in the same bill both " foods and fer- 
tilizers," if I was permitted to draw it. Otherwise, I think that bill 
will in time correct the evil as it is drawn. 

Eepresentative Lever. I do not think you would say that when 
j^ou take into consideration that this whole act expires at the con- 
clusion of peace. 

Mr. Lasater. If that is the case you would unquestionably have 
to have additional legislation. 

Eepresentative Lever. Which goes to show that it is a very hostile 
piece of legislation. I do not know who drew it or proposed it, but 
whoever proposed it did not look very carefully into it. 

Eepresentative Haugen. It has been suggested that you cut out the 
enumeration in the first section, and then enact the second para- 
graph. Would that cover the situation? 

Mr. Lasater. I haven't it well in mind, but I do not think that 
would cover the situation. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, then, the farmers are imposed 
upon with worthless fertilizers? 

Mr, Lasater. There is no question about it. 

The Chairman. Do you think that ought to be stopped? 

Mr. Lasater. I do thing it ought to be stopped. I think it is 
most material to the Nation that it must be stopped because we must 
encourage the use of fertilizers. 

The Chairman. Do you not think that if the utmost yield of the 
farms of the country is to be had it must be by the use of the most 
modern and efficient farm machinery and the best fertilizers? 

Mr. Lasater. I do not think there ever was a time when it was 
more essential that we use more fertilizers than under the present 
conditions of labr, because we ought to make every acre produce as 
much as possible. It is the only way out. 

Gentlemen, I desire to use here a telegram forwarded to me from 
our office at Falfurrias, It says [reading] : 

Quaker Oats Co. wires as follows : " Senator Gore's amendment House bill 
11945 passed Senate Friday provides interstate commerce in certain grain 
by-products feeds which are used enormously supplementing grains such 



ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 115 

valuable and economic feeds as Schuniaker feed would be prohibited from inter- 
state commerce. The elimination of many of the by-products affected means 
immense economic loss and higher values on grains and feeds for dairy cows 
and other live stock. This would unfavorably and seriously affect all farmers 
and live-stock men. Important this amendment be killed in conference with 
House with Representatives. Suggest you start action immediately." 

Palfurkias Jersey Dairy Co. 

The Chairman. Who sent that? 

Mr. Lasater. The Quaker Oats Co. to the Falfurrias Jersey Dairy 
Co., which is the dairy end of my business. 

The Chairman. Do you think that telegram states the fact as to 
this amendment? 

.Mr. Lasater. I do not think it states the fact, and they did not 
expect the facts to be known 2,000 miles away, probably, at this time. 

The Chairman. This may explain the flood of telegrams which 
have been coming in. 

The following letter and copy of telegram Avere directed by the 
chairman to be inserted at this point, and are here printed in full : 

Quaker Oats Co.. 
Chicago, October 1, 1918. 
Hon. Thos. p. Gore, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: In response to your request, we are handing you herewith list of those 
to whom we sent telegrams from our Chicago office regarding the Gore amend- 
ment to H. R. 11945. 

May I say that the somewhat tardy response to your request is due to the 
fact thnt I was confined to my home for a few days directly after my arrival 
from Washington, and that upon my return to business I found that two of the 
gentlemen who had had a hand in sending out some of the telegrams were 
absent from the city, and it was necessary to await their return before the 
names of those to whom they sent wires could be ascertained? 

We are inclosing herewith also copy of a telegram which was sent out, and 
which differs, I think, somewhat from the telegram read into the record by Mr. 
Lasater. This copy we are inclosing, pursuant to your further request that we 
send in copy of any telegram sent out differing from that addressed to Mr. 
Lasater. 

The list follows: 

E. C. Lasater, Falfurrias, Tex. 

J. B. Watson, secretary Ayrshire Breeders' Association, Brandon, Vt. 

Charles L. Hill, Rosendale, Wis. 

E. T. Gill, Haddonfield, N. J. 

Louis E. P. Merriman, Cockeysville, Md. 
Hugh G. Van Pelt, Waterloo, Iowa. 
Frank Hoard, Fort Atkinson, Wis. 
Walter P. Bliss, Bernardsville, N. J. 
H. W. Gossard, Martinsville, Ind. 
, Dean C. F. Curtis, Ames, Iowa. 

Dr. J. A. Armstrong, East Providence, R. I. 
Thomas De Witt Cuyler, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Stephen Canady, Hillsboro, 111. 
John F. Irwin, Minneapolis, Minn. 

F. E. Ransom Hay & Grain Co., Kansas City, Mo. 
Cutter & Dickerson, Adrian, Mich. 

E. L. Wellman, Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Charles A. Krause Milling Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 

H. C. Lockabaugh, Watonga, Okla. 

E. H. Taylor, jr., Frankfort, Ky. 

Frank S. Hastings, Stamford, Tex. 

Day & Rothrock, Sprague, Wash. 

Tulley T. J. Brooke, Peoples Street, Atlanta, Ga. 

H. H. Bradley, Savannah, Ga. 

John E. Talmadge, jr., Atlijens, Ga. 

Paul Mustin, Augusta, Ga. 



116 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

D. D. Adams, Macon, Ga. 
Frank D. Jackson, Tampa, Fla. 
Henry Winer, Chattanooga, Tenu. 
Walter L. Lafew, Richmond, Va. 
Wilson W. Mallory, Memphis, Tenn. 
Caughey B. Hayes, Little Rock, Ark. 

Charles A. Burthe, care of H. T. Cottam, New Orleans, La. 
W. D. Hanna, care of Hanna Distributing Co., Jackson, Miss. 
Sam Meyer, Meridian, Miss. 
W. S. Rogers, Atlanta, Ga. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

James Maetin Grat, Counsel. 

[Copy of telegram.] 

Senator Gore amendment House bill 11945, prohibiting from interstate com- 
merce certain by-product feeds, means serious crisis for dairy and live-stock 
industry if accepted in conference and passed by the House. Immediate action 
necessary to get conference postponed to permit prominent milling and agricul- 
tural men to be heard. With present feed shortage, imperative all sources of 
animal nutrition be conserved and that nothing be stopped from interstate 
traffic ; otherwise there will be a feed famine, as several million tons, possibly, 
of good nutritious feeds will be stopped. Will you use all influences at your 
command, wiring your Representatives at Washington to-day, so that they will 
insist that this conference be delayed until milling and agricultural men can 
be given hearing. To-day flour mills are largely selling their entire feed out- 
put in local territories. This amendment will stop everything of reasonable 
price that can be used as a substitute and will cut ofC supply of mixed feeds so 
necessary in your territory. Kindly wire your Representative at Washington 
to insist on postponement of conference on House bill 11945. Kindly wire 
me, collect, Chicago, what action you take. 

Mr. Lasater. T would like to read into the record a part of the 
letter from Mr. W. E. Skinner, Secretary of the National Dairy Coun- 
cil, to Mr.^V. T. Creasy, who is here present [reading] : 

My dear Mrv. Creasy: I very much appreciate your sending me a copy of 
House bill 11945 showing the Gore amendment on dairy feeds. The way this 
bill reads it looks like the only fellow that would object to it would be some 
feed man that was trying to put over some counterfeit goods. 

Gentlemen, I have bought for the dairy part of my business feeds 
from the Quaker Oats Co. As is well known, the dairy interests for 
the past four years have been fighting to live. We have no margins 
of profit. I would like to read some correspondence with the Quaker 
Oats Co. Their representative is here, and you have heard him to- 
day. Under date of March 30, they wrote [reading] : 

Answering your letter of the 26th, would say 

The Chairman (interposing). That is this year? 

Mr. Lasater. That is this year— March 30, 1918 [reading] : 

that, subject to your immediate acceptance and our confirmation, we will offer 
you one 700-sack car of Schumacher feed at $64.70 per ton, freight and war 
tax paid to Falfurrias, shipment April 15; 1 duplicate car at same price for 
shipment April 25. 

Trusting we may have your wire acceptance of this order, we remain. 

Representative Lever. Is that read into the record to show the 
exhorbitant price they charged? 

Mr. Lasater. If you will just permit me, I will rim right through 
this and you will see why. 

This is under date of March 30 [reading] : 

We have yours of March 30. quoting us price of $64.70 per ton f. o. b Fal- 
furrias, on Schumacher feed, for shipment April 15. We have just wired son 
accepting offer on one car. 



ADULTEBATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 117 

It seems to us as though your price was getting out of reach for us. While 
we have had very good results from feeding Schumacher, still we are afraid 
that we will have to look for something cheaper that we can substitute. 

[Laughter.] 

Just one moment, I am glad I got the laugh out of you, because 
later the laugh will be the other way. It is your only chance. 
Under date of May 24 the Quaker Oats Co. wired us [reading] : 

Letter received. Anxious to keep you supplied Schumacher subject wire 
acceptance. Will book three cars fifty-three twenty. Wire quick, so can protect. 

We placed no more orders at that price, so on May 24 they offered 
three cars at $53.20. We still did not do business, and they wired 
June 15, 1918 [reading] : 

Subject quick wire acceptance and to being unsold, offer three cars Schu- 
macher immediate shipment fifty-fifty. Wire answer. 

On same date we wired the Quaker Oats Co. [reading] : 

Subject to immediate acceptance, can use two cars Schumacher, immediate 
shipment, fifty dollars delivered here. 

On June 15, same date, they wired us : 

Your offer away low, but confirm two cars fifty per ton, Falfurrias, to equalize 
cost earlier cars. 

The reason I read that is this: It shows the i7iiirgin the gentlemen 
had. There was no difference in the character of the grain market 
during this time. 

Mr. Abbott. We object' to that. 

Mr. Lasater. It shoAvs it hj your quotation. I make the statement 
that there was no material difference in grain market during this 
time. 

Representative Lever. Is there anything in this amendment which 
would give Congress the right to regulate the prices? 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. If so. what you have read into the record 
is pertinent; if not, is absolutely not pertinent. 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. I would say this 

Representative Lea'er (interposing). In other n-ords, you are will- 
ing to buy this very injurious, unfair, dangerous, poisonous stuff if 
you can get it at your price? 

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. Wait a moment. If you will take Schu- 
macher feed, which is one of the best feeds they put out — I have never 
attempted to handle any low-grade feeds. 

Representative Lever. What is the purpose of reading that into- 
the record? 

Mr. Lasater. The purpose of reading that into the record was 
to show the way these people have of doing business. As you know, 
our country was pressed for feeds last spring. These gentlemen, with 
no material change in the grain market, pushed it up to the limit to 
see how long we would continue to buy. When they got up to $64.70 
we quit buying, and then they put it to $53.20, and then $50.70, which 
I do not think can be the average they make. 

The Chairman. According to their claim, the price of their mate- 
rial had advanced in the meantime? 

Mr. Lasater. There was no change in grain prices during period 
under consideration to justify the difference of $14.70 per ton. 



118 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Representative Lever, And your remedy is that because they 
charged you more than you think tliey ought to charge that you 
would prohibit interstate shipment? 

Mr. Lasater. No, gentlemen, that is not wlnit I claim here. I 
claim that this group of feed manufacturers, the American Feed 
Manufacturers Association, instead of being p. lienefit to the pro- 
ducers of the country are a leech upon the producing interests of the 
countr}'. 

Representative Lever. You think they were a benefit when they 
allowed you to buy this feed at $50 a ton ? 

Mr. Lasater. That Avas something like the market price, sir. But 
wait a moment. If we did not have this American Feed Manufac- 
turers Association in control of things, it would be nothing like as 
difficult to buy. We would buy through brokers as we have always 
bought prior to this organization. 

Representative Lever. Your proposition is tkac they constitute a 
monopoly controlling this business? 

Mr. Lasater, Absolutely, 

Representative Lever. Then we ought to have an amendment to 
cover that proposition. 

Mr. Lasater. These gentlemen demanded this hearing. Senator 
Oore later asked me if we desired to be heard. You know the farm 
■organizations have no such organization as the American Feed Man- 
ufacturers Association. I told him we would like to be heard. So, 
within the week we made the best showing we could. We have not 
been able to cover the continent, but we will show the efforts of these 
gentlemen in a near-by State that has something like 11,000,000 of 
the 100,000,000 of American people in the United States. When you 
gentlemen become familiar with their practices I think you will see 
somewhat of the reason that they Avanted to stop this hearing at this 
stage of the game, 

Mr. Gray, I think it was, of the Quaker Oats Co., was questioned 
a few moments ago in regard to the profits of the Quaker Oats Co. 
The letter I read is pertinent to that extent, along those lines. I have 
here the Standard Corporation records by the Standard Statistics 
Co., incorporated, 49 West Street, New York City. That shows the 
earned dividends of the Quaker Oats Co, for 1917 on preferred stock 
of 52,29 per cent, and on common stock of 52.65 i;er cent. 

The Chairman. Is that the Quaker Oats Co.? 

Mr. Lasater. That is the Quaker Oats Co. For 1916 it was 40.95 
on preferred stock and 40.94 on common stock; for 1915 it was 38.12. 
on preferred stock and 38,54 on common stock. 

When you go back to 1908 their earnings were 11.37 on preferred 
stock and 10.28 on the common stock. 

If that is not profiteering, I do not know what would be under this 
situation. 

The Chairman, Those are the profits of the Quaker Oats Co, ? 

Mr, Lasater, I gave you the authority, sir. Here it is, [Ex- 
hibiting paper to the committee.] 

The Chairman. Was it the Quaker Oats Co. that sent out that 
telegram you read here? 

Mr. Lasater. Yes; it was the Quaker Oats Co, that sent that 
telegram, and I read the correspondence also I had with the Quaker 
Oats Co, 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 119 

The Chairman. Up to this time the Quaker Oats Co. have mani- 
fested a ^reat deal of interest in the hearing. Of course they had a 
right to do that. 

Mr. Lasater. I had understood that Mr. Chapman, who is con- 
nected with the Quaker Oats Co. and who for many years was presi- 
dent of this organization that is here 

_ The Chairman (interposing). The Feed Manufacturers' Asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr. Lasater. Yes, sir — and he had been president. I believe Mr. 
Gray stated he had not been president. 

Mr. Gray. I did so state. 

Mr. Lasater. What was his position? Would you object to so 
stating ? 

Mr. Gray. No ; of course I would not. He was the manager of the 
feed department of the Quaker Oats Co. 

The Chairman. Mr. Lasater, did you mean what position he held 
with the American Feed Manufacturers' Association ? 

Mr. Lasater. My understanding is that he was president of that, 
and I think we will show that very conclusively. 

The Chairman. Kepresentative Carlin, of Virginia, has a gentle- 
man whom he would like us to hear, and if there is no objection we 
will proceed to hear him. 

STATEMENT OF MR. S. C. CROPLEY, MANAGER VIRGINIA FEED 
& MILLING CORPORATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA. 

The Chairman. Please state your name, the business you are en- 
gaged in, and address. 

Mr. Cropley. My name is S. C. Cropley, and I am manager of 
the Virginia Feed & Milling Corporation, millers of concentrated 
feeds, and our plant is situated at Alexandria, Va. 

Before I proceed, gentlemen, I would like to say to the whole com- 
mittee, or committee appointed by the committee, that our plant is 
within a few miles of the Capitol. We would be very glad to cor- 
dially invite you down there at any time that you might want to 
come. We will show you the raw material that we use. We will 
carry you through and show you exactly how it is blended. We will 
take you to the finished product, and we will give you, if you desire, 
the samples of our feeds and let them be examined by the Department 
of Agriculture. 

We have been through the West. I have visited a great many con- 
centrate mills. They have always cordially invited me to go through 
their mills. Naturally I accepted, because we all want to learn as 
much as we possibly can. During that time I state truthfully that 
I did not see any ingredients going into concentrate feeds that have 
beeen a disadvantage to the cattle. 

Senator Gore, I was at the meeting yesterday morning at 10.30, 
where you asked the question regarding molasses. Why do we put 
water into flour ? To be able to knead it, to keep down the dust, and 
to produce a bread that will not be injurious to us. It is not dust 
that goes into our feeds ; it is the flour from alfalfa especially. When 
you take alfalfa and grind it as we do and as the western men do — in 
its natural state — it contains 14 per cent of protein. That dust con- 
tains 24 per cent. We use alfalfa flour in some of our ingredients. 



120 ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 

Wliile the molasses that is placed in our alfalfa feeds has no feeding 
value, it is made use of deliberately for the good of the cattle. It is 
used to bind the flour of the grain and the ground hay, and it is the 
most important ingredient in the feeds. It also adds to the fats. 
It also produces heat in the body of the cattle. Without heat we can 
not exist. 

Regarding the proteins of wheat middlings, if you would like to 
have them it is possible I may be able to answer you intelligently 
why there is a shortage in mill feeds if you would like me to try to 
enlighten you to the extent of my ability. 

The concentrated feeds are a balance, naturally. 

The carbohydrates are necessary, which are to a certain extent sugar 
and starches and minerals. We endeavor to the utmost of our ability 
to blend those things in such a way that it will be advantageous to the 
feeding of that stuff. If the farmer would sell his corn to-day he 
would get $66 a ton for it. He can buy our dairy feeds at $61. He 
can sell his corn and buy his feeds back and he is the gainer, and he 
will get more, because he can not blend, I think, as well as mills 
which have the delicate machinery in them for blending purposes. 
Our mill is a quality mill, and I cordially invite you all to come down 
and make an examination of it. 

The Chairman. You say it is true of your own mill, and I assume 
of the other mills you have visited, that they are conducted in a 
perfectly proper 'way? 

Mr. Cropley. As far as I know, Senator, the mills I have visited 
have all turned out quality feeds. Of course, some of us use different 
ingredients from others. 

The Chairman. You would not have any objection to the enact- 
ment of a law that would prevent mills which are not conducting 
their business in a perfectly proper way from going on, or requiring 
them to conduct their business like you conduct yours? 

Mr. Cropley. I would like to see a Federal bill. Senator, intro- 
duced to cover the entire feeding stuffs of the United States, and 1 
believe if this was given due consideration — and I am willing at any 
time to have you call on me for any service I may be able to be to 
you in regard to any question that you might like to ask me in regard 
to the feeding situation. 

The Chairman. A great many States have laws now, have they 
not? 

Mr. Cropley. Forty-two. You take the State of Georgia, we ship 
into, and South Carolina and North Carolina — we are shipping to 
those States our products showing analyses facts and the ingredients. 

The Chairman. What did you say there? 

Mr. Cropley. Showing the analysis facts. 

The Chairman. And the ingredients? 

Mr. Cropley. And the ingredients, but not the percentage of the 
ingredients. That you can not determine after it has been mixed. 
I was talking to Mr. Purcell, the deputy commissioner of the Com- 
monwealth of Virginia, and he said that at the present time science 
had not developed so far as to determine, after feeds have been mixed, 
the percentage of each ingredient, and all they could find out in their 
determination was the protein content. 

When the State of Virginia started to raise alfalfa, hay only 
brought about $3 a ton. That part of the State of Virginia which 



ADULTEBATTON OF MIXED FEEDS. 121 

is agricultural to-day is raising considerable alfalfa hay, and more 
acres are being planted in it every day, and that hay is worth $30 
per ton, and why? Because the alfalfa millers have used it as a 
foundation. 

I am perfectly willing to answer any questions. 

The Chairman, Will you go ahead with different ingredients — 
taking a typical example of this mixed feed you turn out and. state 
how many pounds of the different stuffs you put in it, and state what 
it would be worth ? 

Mr. Ceopley. I have not those formulae just in my head, but any 
time to-morrow I will be glad to give it to you. 

The Chairman. Will you prepare that formula and attach it to 
your statement? 

Mr. Cropley. I will be very glad to do so. 

The Chairman. Showing the ingredients in a ton of mixed feed 
and what each ingredient cost per ton? 

Mr. Ceopley. Yes, sir ; I will be very glad to do it. 

Mr. Lasater. Do you know what your butter fat would cost on 
alfalfa that you pay $34? Could you give this committee the cost 
of butter fats? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir ; because we use other ingredients to produce 
the fat. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, if this amendment should be passed 
it will absolutely ruin our business. 

The Chairman. Why would that interfere with you? What of 
those enumerated articles do 3'ou put into your feed ? 

Mr. Cropley. Alfalfa hay, oats, corn, molasses, bran. 

The Chairman. Read that [handing copy of H. R. 19945 to the 
witness] , and state which ones you put in and which ones you do not. 

Mr. Cropley. Damaged feed, as Senator Reed said yesterday, con- 
tains a certain amount of feeding value. 

The Chairman. And you put that in your mixture? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir. Screenings we do use. because there is a 
feeding value to screenings so far as we know. 

The Chairman. You select your screenings, do you not? 

Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir ; but wheat hulls we do not use. We bought 
cottonseed hulls and refused to use them after we bought them. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Cropley. Because we did not think that they were good 
enough to produce the quality of feed that we manufactured, and we 
are after quality. 

The Chairman. You think that so far as cottonseed hulls are con- 
cerned it would be a good idea to keep that in ? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir ; because we refused to continue to use them. 

The Chairman. But does everybody else? 

Mr. Cropley. That I can not state, because I did not examine 
every feed. 

Representative Lever. Some refused to use them. 

Mr. Cropley. They are sold xery largely. Peanut hulls we do not 
use ; peanut shells we do not use : rice hulls we do not use. 

The Chairman. You do not object to any of those things staying 
in the amendment? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir; we do not. But still at the same time — I 
do not object to them staying in the amendment. 



122 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Representative Lever. Do they have any feed value? 

Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir ; they have a feed value. 

Representative Lever. Do you object to anybody using them? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir; I do not. 

The Chairman. But you object to people selling them for some- 
thing different from what they are? 

Mr. Cropley. I certainly think so, if misbranded, but they have 
a feeding value. 

Representative Haugen. How much? How does it compare with 
timothy hay or alfalfa hay? 

Mr. Cropley. I can not just answer that. You take oat hulls and 
they have 50.1 digestibility. 

Representative Haugen. How much has alfalfa? 

Mr. Cropley. Alfalfa has about 14 per cent of protein; when it is 
reduced to flour it has about 24 per cent protein. 

Corn products have about 50 per cent carbohydrates. 

The Chairman. Do you use those? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir; we do not. But corncobs I do not believe 
are injurious, because of the carbohydrates they contain. 

The Chairman. You dot regard corncobs as concentrated feed? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir; I do not. 

Representative Haugen. What would you consider the value of 
corncobs as a feed? 

Mr. Cropley. When you buy a barrel of corn you buy 350 pounds 
in the East, and that is supposed to run 5 bushels of grain. The 
A'alue of that, I imagine, alone would be in the neighborhood of $10 
or $12 a ton, although that I do not Iniow, because I do not sell it. 

Representative Haugen, The fact is that when you sell the corn 
on the cob you give away the cob? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir ; we do not. We use it for fuel purposes. 

Representative Haugen. "Wlien you sell it on the cob you give that 
many more pounds? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir. 

Representative Haugen. In my section of the country it is gen- 
erally 75 to 85 pounds on the cob. 

Mr. Cropley. In the East you buy by the barrel, 350 pounds being 
equivalent to the barrel, and that sells about 5 bushels to the barrel. 

Representative Haugen. And 70 pounds on the cob? 

Mr. Cropley. I do not know ; I never measured it. 

Representative Haugen. How many pounds of shelled corn? 

Mr. Cropley. Shelled corn runs 56 pounds to the measured bushel, 
and you multiply 5 by 56, w^hich is 280, and the differential between 
them would be 7. 

Representative Haugen. The value of the cob is not taken into con- 
sideration. If you sell the corn on the cob you have to give that 
many more pounds to make up for the weight of the cob? 

Mr. Cropley. You see the standard in the east is 56 pounds to the 
bushel. 

Representative Haugen. Of shelled corn? 

Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. And 70 pounds in the cob? 

Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. And on the cob 75 to 80 pounds, and in the 
last two years 100 pounds? 



ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 123 

Mr. Cropley. On account of the moisture. Nature lias provided 
us Avith moisture. The atmosphere surrounding us contains 12| per 
cent of moisture, and without it we could not exist. 

The Chairman. You say you bum the cobs ? 

Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir ; we burn most of our cobs. 

The Chairman. Why do you not mix them with the feed? 

Mr. Cropley. The reason we do not mix them with the feed is be- 
cause I do not cater to anything unless it is high-grade goods. 

The Chairman. There is the point. 

Mr. Cropley. But this is going to put me out of business. 

Representative Lee. You get more money for your goods that you 
mix? 

Mr. Cropley. I do not know about that. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Seriously considering, what Avould you 
consider the value of the corncobs as a feeder? 

Mr. Cropley. I would have to get the chemical analyses of that 
to tell you. I do not know the feeding value of that outside of the 
carbohydrates. 

Representative Haugen. You do not contend that cobs have any 
feeding value? 

Mr. Cropley. They have some value in the carbohydrates. I 
probably may have the figures here. I will see if I have it. [Ex- 
amining papers.] Corncobs contain one-half of 1 per cent protein, 
0.3. fat, and 54.1 carbohydrates. That is a feeding value. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Would the feeding value be equal to the 
freight from one State to another? 

Mr. Cropley. If, while I do not use them, they were used in the 
proper proportions and sold on that basis, showing on the tag that 
this ingredient contained corncobs, I think so; yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen, It is a fact, is it not, that the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, looking after the interests of 6,000,000 farm- 
ers, have overlooked the value of corncobs, and nobody has raised 
the question 3='et that they had any feed value ? 

Mr. Cropley. That is my contention, that they do contain feed 
value ; oat hulls contain a feed value. 

Representative Haugen. I was trying to get at the value. 

Mr. Cropley. The only way to get at that value would be, in my 
judgment, to take it to the Department of Agriculture and let them 
decide the feed value. 

The Chairman. That is what this amendment proposes to do. 

Mr. Cropley. But if this amendment goes through, as I tell you, 
it is going to ruin my plant absolutely. 

The Chairman. Do you not think the Secretary of Agriculture 
would give you permission to ship your stuff, as good as it is? 

Mr. Cropley. The bill states that while an interstate shipment, as 
I understand it, has to show the percentage of the ingredients, that 
is a trade secret, gentlemen, and you know as a rule the courts up- 
hold a trade secret. 

The Chairman. Then that is your objection to this amendment? 

Mr. Cropley. My objection is not that. My objection is this: 
That the millers of cencentrated feeds in this country, in my judg- 
ment, are absolutely honorable and try to produce goods that will 
be economical when it is fed, to produce production in the way of 
eggs and milk for the human system. 



124 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

The Chairman. Do you think the passage of the pure-food laws 
and these various feed hiws was just a matter of idle exercise? 

Mr. Cropley. No, sir; at the present time the State laws cover 
that thoroughly. They have their inspectors going around all the 
time inspecting feed and taking samples? 

The Chairman. Why do the}' do that? 

Mr. Cropley. Because a law was passed by the State legislatures. 
I would like to see this amendment changed. I would like more 
time and deliberation given to it. I would like a Federal law passed 
to cover all these things, so that we would know, as Mr. Watson 
said on the floor of the House some years ago when interrupted by 
half a dozen Members: "Mr. Speaker, do you know where I am at? " 
[Laughter.] 

The Chairman. I believe we are going to have to ask you to con- 
clude 3'our statement, as we have allowed you more than five minutes. 

Representative Haugen. Can not his time be extended? 

Eepresentative Candler. His time was taken up by questions 
asked him by members of the conference. 

The Chairman. If the committee desire, we will allow him to go 
ahead. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Just one (juestion. Would it be a hard- 
ship or any inconvenience to the manufacturers of food to label 
their goods to give approximately the quantity of each ingredient? 

Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir; it would, especially at the present time 
when it is almost impossible to obtain labor to operate our plants 
even on a 50 basis. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Would that require any extra labor? 
You have to mix it anyway ? 

Mr. Cropley. Oh. yes. But, still, e^■ery little action of the hand 
takes up time, how much I do not know. 

Eepresentative Haugen. I take it you have some rule to go by 
as to the mixture. 

Mr. Cropley. We probably could install machinery for that pur- 
pose; yes, sir; I do not doubt that. 

Eepresentative Haugen. At the present time there must be some 
rule for the mixture to go by ? 

Mr. Cropley. Oh, yes; we have weighing machines that every bit 
of the ingredients go through that are as accurate as a clock. 

Eepresentative Haugen. Then you know the amount that goes in? 

Mr. Cropley. Oh, absolutely so. Of course machinery is like 
human nature, it is liable to fall down. 

The Chairman. Do a great many States require a statement of the 
ingredients ? 

Mr. Cropley. Why, 42 States, I think. 

The Chairman. Yet you do not do that yourself. 

Mr. Cropley. They require it, and while each State we sell into 
we put a new formula for brancl on the market we have to register 
that with the State. That is done under oath, showing the analysis, 
minimum protein, minimum fat, and the maximum fiber. 

The Chairman. But it does not state the ingredients? 

Mr. Cropley. It does state the ingredients, absolutely so. 

Eepresentative Haugen. But not the percentage ? 

Mr. Cropley. But not the percentage. 



ADULTEBATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 125 

Representative Haugek. Then it does not amount to anything. 

Mr. Cropley. Then it would not show up protein or its fat. To 
get your protein you have got to have good goods in them, otherwise 
it will not analyze them as we represent them to be. 

The Chairman. You say you have got to have good feed to have 
protein ? 

Mr. Cropley. No; I say if those ingredients that were put in our 
mixture of feeds do not contain the necessary protein, fat, and fiber 
when they are blended together it would not come out in its final 
anah'sis. 

The Chairman, We are very much obliged to you and also to 
Judge Carlin for having you come here. We will now hear Mr 
White. 

STATEMENT OF MR. C. R. WHITE, DEPARTMENT OF FARM AND 
MARKETS, ALBANY, N. Y. 

Mr. White. The testimony here yesterday show.ed that as a rule in 
nearly every State the members of the Manufacturers' Feed Associa- 
tion had complied with the law. If that is the case, when they com- 
ply with the law when enacted, I do not see why anybody should be 
so exercised. If those people are not willing to comply, that is up to 
the Federal and State authorities. The question comes up about the 
State of New York in regard to the production of milk. We think 
that we can not produce milk in New York State economically if we 
are to be forced to use low grade materials that we do not need. We 
have in the State a surplus of hay carried over from last year, I 
can go to a number of counties and find you baled hay in the barns. 
We are producing a very considerable quantity of alfalfa in some 
parts of the State, and it is being sold to go outside of -the State in 
some parts to the Quartermaster's Department. We have an ex- 
tremely large crop of oats and barley. We have all of that kind of 
material we want. 

Representative Lever, Why do you not use it ? 

Mr, White. We do. 

Representative Lever. Why do vou propose that we adopt this 
thing? 

Mr. White, We do not propose to do so, if we can avoid it. They 
come in the high grade feeds, and we can not get the high grade con- 
stituents without buying them. 

Representative Lever, You require this here inferior stuff to mix 
with your own hay and materials? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. Why was that? 

Mr. White. Because they are not offered for sale in our part of 
the State. The stock feeds are sold mainly by small dealers, and they 
can not carry the large number of constituents which should enter 
into a stock feed. We do not object to buying mixed feeds and prefer 
to use mixed feeds. A gentleman was here yesterday testifying that 
he has never, outside of seven or eight cars a year, bought for his 
herds any mixed feeds, but that he would buy mixed feeds and bo 
willing to pay more at the present time if he could get it entirely 
free from objectionable material. 



126 ADULTEEATTON OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Eepresentative Lever. Do jovl think this amendment cures that ? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Eepresentative Lever. How ? 

Mr. White. Because it shows what is in them. 

Eepresentative Lever. Suppose they do not sell it to you. 

Mr. White. If they do not sell it to us, we will get along with- 
out it. 

Eepresentative Lever. That is the trouble now, they do not sell it 
to you? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Eepresentative Lever. Does this cure that trouble? 

Mr. White. If they sell mixed feeds. 

Eepresentative Lea-er. Well, you say you don't want this mixed 
stuff sold. 

Mr. White. I didn't say I didn't want mixed feed. We do want 
mixed feed, but we want to know what is in it. We want to know the 
amount of ingredients in it. 

Eepresentative Lever. I thought your proposition was somewhat 
like Mr. Lasater's,' that the farmers there in New York had plenty 
of roughage. 

Mr. White. Yes, sir ; and we say that we prefer them not to ship 
that stuff into this State. It is an economical loss to us, and I think 
I can show you 

Eepresentative Lever (interposing). I agree with you. But how 
are you going to remedy the proposition? Will this amendment do 
that? 

Mr. White. If it is prohibited from being shipped in the mixed 
feeds, it will be. 

Eepresentative Lever. Your proposition is Mr. Lasater's, to pro- 
hibit the shipment of all this stuff in interstate commerce ? 

Mr. White. In mixed feeds; yes. And another thing we wish to 
bring in is the economic loss in the transportation of these materials. 
Oat hulls contain 3.4 per cent of protein and 0.6 of 1 per cent of fat. 
Digestible fat protein is only 1.3, or 26 pounds to the ton. Cotton- 
seed meal contains 37.6 — I am taking this from Henry's works on 
Feed and Feeding — 37.6 per cent of protein and 9.6 per cent of fat, 
or 47 per cent, 47 pounds to the hundred of digestible nutrients. 
Now, I want to call our attention to this fact, that it will require 
36 cars of oat hulls to contain the same nutrition that is contained 
in one carload of cottonseed meal ; that the transportation charges on 
a $5 freight rate costs $1.92 per pound for digestible nutrients, 
while in cottonseed meal it costs 0.53 of 1 cent a pound. 

In gluten feed there are 21.3 per cent of digestible protein and 
2.9 of fat, and the freight rate is 1.06 cents per pound. It would 
require 19 carloads of oat hulls to equal one carload of gluten feed, 
of feed that is claimed by some is no better than oat hulls, as wheat 
bran, which contains 12 per cent of digestible protein and 3 per cent 
of fat, or 300 pounds to the ton. Taking the cost of transportation 
at $5 per ton, on that rate it would be 1.66 cents freight rate per 
pound. It would require 11 carloads of oat hulls to equal 1 ton of 
wheat bran. 

We claim that it is an economic loss. It means thousands and 
thousands of cars are used — I am not speaking of what may be in 
Texas or some other drouth-stricken region where those oat hulls 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 127 

may be shipped as roughage economically, but to transport them into 
the State of New York where we have roughage that will go down 
in the barnyards, and thousands of tons in the shape of good straw, 
enormous quantities of hay — the largest hay-producing State in the 
Union — with alfalfa, too, that the farmers don't want it. They have 
no use for it. It is simply coals to Xew Castle, bringing material 
that we already have. 

Representative Le\tir. Your proposition is, Mr. White, as I under- 
stand it — and you make a very fair witness and a very intelligent 
statement — your position is that because the buying of these mixed 
feeds by the farmers of New York is uneconomical, that therefore we 
ought to pass this legislation to prohibit the interstate shipment of 
mixed feeds at all. 

Mr. White. Containing certain ingredients. 

Eepresentative Lever. Containing certain ingredients which in 
themselves are not deleterious to health or dangerous, and which in 
themselves contain somewhat of a feeding value? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Eepresentative Lever. You would inhibit the shipment of these in- 
gredients in interstate commerce because you have a situation in New 
York where your farmers Avith plenty of hay on hand for some rea- 
son or other prefer to buv these mixed feed. Is that vour proposi- 
tion ? 

Mr. White. They do like to buy mixed feeds ; yes, sir. 

Representative Lever. Now, then, to educate the farmers of New 
York you would prohibit the farmers of Oklahoma from selling their 
alfalfa meal as a mixture. 

Mr. White. No, sir. It was in the State of New York where this 
measure originated, and it was not the purpose of the State food 
commission to include alfalfa meal. It was not the intention that 
it should include hay. 

Representative Lever. Did I understand you to say that this 
amendment originated in New York State? 

Mr. White. The amendment did not, but I think some of the ma- 
terial did before the New York Food Commission after an investiga- 
tion of some two months in which we took 115 samples of feed. 

Representative Lever. Now, just what do you mean? Your 
farmers in New York, you say, have plenty of hay, plenty of straw, 
plenty of oat chaff or Avhatever you call it, that you could burn it and 
still have plenty of it left, and you object to the shipment of these 
mixed feeds into New York, because you think your farmers ought 
to consume their own roughage in connection with these unmixed 
ingredients ? 

Mr. White. We certainly do. 

Representative Lever. Is that your position ? 

Mr. White. I think as a war measure it is exactly what ought to 
be done. 

Representative Lever. I think you are exactly right, and for that 
reason you would prohibit the farmer of Mississippi or Texas or 
Kansas, who has corn cobs or cottonseed hulls to sell that your 
farmer in New York wants — you would prohibit your farmer from 
buying and the Mississippi and Kansas farmer from selling it ? 

Mr. White. No; we have no objection to his selling stuff for 
exactly what it is. 



128 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

Eepresentative Lever. So you come to the Federal Government 
and ask the Federal Government to take a big stick and knock some 
ordinary common economic sense into the heads of the farmers in 
New York. Is that your proposition? 

Mr. White. No, sir; we do not. 

Representative Lever. Well, I can't get your point. 

Mr. White. There is no reason why products that we have in the 
State of New York should be shipped into the State of New York 
in a condition where we can't detect it. 

The Chairman. Do you object to the farmer in Mississippi and 
Oklahonja selling anything he has got to anybody who wants to buy 
it, representing it as just what it is? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you object to the farmer in New York or any- 
where else buying anything he wants to buy from anybody on earth 
if he knows what he is buying? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

Representative Lever. Yes; the gentleman does. 

Mr. White. The point right here. jNIr. Lever, is that the gentlemen 
who oppose this measure are taking the ground and have taken it in 
in the State of New York before a hearing, that if the order of the 
State's food commission was made which compelled them to put the 
amount of these so-termed adulterants upon their bags it would 
absolutely exclude their products from the market. In other words, 
they admitted that the farmers wouldn't buy the feed if they knew 
it contained these materials. 

Representative Lever. Have you got authority to do that in your 
State law now? 

Mr. White. That measure is pending. Hearings are to be held on 
it the 5th of October. I will say this that when the State's food com- 
mission adjourned that meeting, or deferred the action of that order 
it was done temporarily, awaiting what might be done here in Con- 
gress, and the statement was sent out that it w^as postponed in- 
definitely, but I think I can assure the gentleman that it was post- 
poned very indefinitely and for very definite purposes. 

The Chairman. Mr. White, if you will pardone me, I will remind 
you that there is an hour allotted to your side. I don't know what 
your arrangements are. Someone told me your were to talk 5 min- 
utes and I think your have been talking 15. Of course you can use 
the whole time, so far as the committee is concerned. 

Mr. White. I answered the question. Senator Gore, that was all. 

Representative Haugen. Just let me ask you one question. My 
understanding is that your objection is to the corncob masquesrading 
under false colors? 

Mr. White. Absolutely. 

Representative Haugen. So that if the Secretary should find that 
corncobs or whatever it may be — these shells and these different 
things that have been enumerated here — have no value as feed, he 
would prohibit the use of mixing or mixing of these worthless and 
useless articles. 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. We have full confidence in the Secretary 
of Agriculture as being capable of determining those things as the 
authority. 



ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 129 

The Chaiumax. Now, avIiomi will you have next? 

Mr. Ward. I think we will close with a few remarks that I have 
been asked to make upon this matter. 

Now, in behalf of these dairy and milk producers' organizations, 
Senators and gentlemen, I desire to say that we don't think, and 
we don't want any antagonism long drawn out and to exist between 
the feed manufacturers and the milk producers. There isn't any 
necessity for it. It isn't in the nature of the business as legitimately 
and rightfully conducted. We Avent along for a great many years 
growing milk and dairy products in the State of New York, supply- 
ing them with the foodstutfs and grain and by-products produced in 
the West and South, and there w^as no trouble. There was no mis- 
trust and there was no wholesale frauds perpetrated upon our people 
who bought these products. Then came in this mixed-feed — com- 
pounded-feed — proposition. Now, I know — and I have had con- 
siderable experience with it — that 50 per cent of the men who manu- 
facture compounded feeds manufacture a good staple article that 
can have its name posted on every package of it with perfect freedom 
and confidence. Gradually the percentage has crept up so that the 
other 50 per cent has got to be mistrusted. There isn't any ques- 
tion — and we don't complain that the Quaker Oats people sold for 
dairy food 300.000 tons of oat hulls. We are glad they sold them. 
We don't ask the Federal Government to do a thing that will pro- 
hibit their being sold in New York or anywhere else. All we ask of 
the Federal Government is that they be labelel " oat hulls." Now, 
that is all we ask, that when a farmer dri\'es up to the feed store 
and the dairyman says to him, " Here is a fine brand that will pro- 
duce a lot of milk, and it is made so and so," that if there is 10 
pounds or "20 pounds or 30 pounds or 50 pounds of straw in that 
package the label shall so appear on it. 

It seems that the discussion has gone along on other subjects here, 
something else than the real point contained in this measure. We 
don't care how nmch money the Quaker Oats people make. I want 
to call the attention of the committee to the fact that if this 300,000 
tons of oat hulls were sold to the dairymen in this country who were 
producing milk at $50 or $60 a ton, that the consumer ultimately pays 
that price. And that wasn't right. Milk that the consumers use 
and that is necessary for them to live on should not be produced on 
a straw material which costs the dairymen, becase of the negligence 
of the lawmaking power, the cost of high-value feeds. 

N'ow% this is not a new subject. In 1913 Senator Owen introduced 
in this Congress the exact bill that you have got there now — Senate 
bill 8177. Section 5 treats of the interstate transportation of adul- 
terated foodstuffs. Section 6 reads: 

For the pui-posfs of this act the feeding stuffs- shall he deemed to he adul- 
terated if it contains any sawdust, dirt, damaged feed, rice liuUs, chaff, peanut 
liulls, crushed coriunihs, oat hulls, oat clippings, or any foreign matter whatever. 

There is the same thing. That bill died in the Senate committee. 
Now can it be said that it w^as not wndely know^n and has not been 
in all these years, when thfe dairymen w^ere seeking relief — can it be 
claimed that these things were not widely known that this was a 
fraudulent thing, an, imposition upon not only the farmers of this 

81413—18 9 



130 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

country but the dwellers and workers in the cities who have to ulti- 
mately pay the 52 per cent of the profits which the Quaker Oats got 
lats year for selling oat hulls as high-grade food? 

Eepresentative Lever. Mr. Ward, were there any hearings on that 
bill of Senator Owen's? 

Mr. Ward. I don't know. 

Eepresentative Lever. I ask that purely for information. 

Mr. Ward. I don't know. I know that the Department of Agri- 
culture year after year has pounded away on this subject. Every 
State department has called attention to the fraud, the continued 
fraud, the constant fraud practiced, not by the sale of the stuff 

Representative Lever (interposing). Now let's see about that. 
Have you any document issued by the Department of Agriculture 
calling attention to this fraud? 

Mr. Ward. I wouldn't say the department. I have a document 
issued 

Eepresentative Lever (interposing). That is what you did say, 
thougli. 

Mr. Ward. I have a document issued by Dr. Brown, of the Bureau 
of Plant Industry — I believe he is connected with the Agricultural 
Department — on the use of darnall, cockrell, and wild mustard as 
brans in wheat screenings, in which he says: 

There is evidently too little information as to the poisonous character of 
many of our weed seeds. Darnell and cockrell bran contain a dangerous alka- 
loid, which if long continued seriously injures the health of domestic animals. 

Eepresentative Le\t:r. When was that issued ? 

INIr. Ward. That was issued and published in Flour and Feed in 
December, 1911, volume 12 of the Congressional Library, page 32. 

Eepresentative Lever. Mr. Ward, is this the first time that you 
gentlemen came down here on this proposition ? 

Mr. Ward. The first time I have had the pleasure of being down 
here. These farmers can't come down here. They haven't the 
capital to come. They can't come until they get an association such 
as these gentlemen represent. And I want to call your attention to 
that. The agricultural departments of the various States- — in our 
State in particular — are largely responsible for the extent to which 
the fraudulent feeds have been sold to our farmers. They con 
ceived the idea that because these mysterious hieroglyphics and 
brands were on the bag that in some way the State is guaranteeing 
that product and protecting them. Now, just th.e contrary is tlie 
fact. All the State does in our State — here are four volumes, pub- 
lished year by year, showing the amount of fraudulent feeds that 
were bought by the dairymen in our State two years previous. 
That is all our agricultural department does. The shipment of a 
carload or 20 carloads or 20,000 bags of a given feed comes into the 
State, and one sample is taken. Two years afterwards the State 
experiment station says that that feed that was brought in in 1915 — 
they say in 1917 — that that carload of feed or that sample of feed 
had 50 per cent of worthless material in it. 

Eepresentative Lever. Don't you think you had better get a new 
State department of agriculture? 

Mr. Ward. Now, wait a moment. There is something further than 
that, and we have got the best laws in the United States on that 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 131 

subject. There is something further than that. Our agricultural 
department, as I understand it, up till the present time had this 
arrangement: If the feed dealer was found with inferior and un- 
lawful material in the sample, even the feed dealer wasn't warned 
that the feed he was selling was oat hulls and straw instead of being 
a valuable food grain, but the letter fixing the penalty for the sale 
was, by an arrangement with this association which is represented 
here, instead of going to the feed dealer was sent to this association, 
or to the manufacturer, who paid the penalty on that one bag,. and 
the 50,000 bags passed along. And that accounts for these numerous 
samples. 

After one of these feeds has been convicted, notoriously convicted 
in the neighborhood of being fraudulent and inferior, the same feed 
appears 30 days afterwards under a new license number and a 
new name. That is the reason that these brands have crept up 
from 300 to 4.000. You throw them out the back door and they come 
in the front door under a new name, the same old stuff. 

Now, the statement was made here yesterday — and I don't want 
it to go unchallenged — that our dairy cows and dairy industry and 
milk and dair}^ production was increasing under tliis diet. It is not 
so. The Federal census report of 1910 gave 1,500,000 dairy cows. 
The State enumeration of 1915 gave 1.300.000 dairy cows, a decroasb 
of nearly 2^00.000. This year and last year we fed more of these feeds 
than ever before, and the thing is so arranged by organizations of 
these feed dealers, organized from the bottom up — and it is spread 
on the records of our courts and in the reports of our legislative 
bodies, the evidence which has been taken — that there is no way 
under the sun to-day, no practical way, that our farmers can get a 
jarlcad of cottonseed meal to feed their stock. 

Eepresentative Lever. Now. Mr. Ward, do you attribute this de- 
.Tease to the selling of these mixed feeds, or what? 

Mr. Ward. That is the only change in our dairy situation, the 
increasing consumption of these mixed feeds. This death rate is 
unexplained — I am not a veterinary surgeon. They can't lay their 
hands on the difficulty, but every year those dairies come through 
weaker and weaker. 

Representative Lever. Let me ask you this: Can you state to this 
committee here the percentage of decrease in your dairy cattle due 
to death and the percentage of decrease due to the fact that dairy- 
mer! are celling their dairy cattle? 

Mr. Ward. No, I can't do that. 

liepresentative Lever. For beef purposes? 

Mr. Ward. I can give you these statistics which may answer. The 
record of milk distributing cost shows that the average production 
of their patron's herds in 1902 was 270 pounds of milk per dav per 
herd. That is, per day per herd. In 1916 this average pro'^luctio'i 
was 204 pounds about per day, a decrease of 18.7 per cent. Now. I 
don't sa}^ — I don't know about the'^e things, I am taki^ g the state- 
ment of Mr. Halligan, the head of the Department of Chemi'^^^ry in 
the Louisiana Experiment Station, and the statement of Dr. Brown, 
of the Bureau of Plant Industry, that it is possible to mix a d-iiry 
food that injures and destroj-s cattle. Spoiled corn, fermen<"ed corn, 
r.nder certain conditions, he says — and they say — cause death or in- 



132 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

jury to the health of cattle. Rice hulls, they tell us — and Dr. Halli- 
gan states it — no southern stock raiser will let his stock have access 
to rice hulls because he has learned by experience that rice hulls are 
injurious to the animals. Yet our people buy them without being 
branded or without being named, day after day, and year after year. 
Now, is it anything that we ask here after five years since a com- 
mittee of this Senate, a committee of the United States Senate, pro- 
nounced these things fraudulent and injurious — ' — 

Representative Lever (interposing). Well, did a committee of the 
Senate do that very thing? 

Mr. AVard. I say that when a Senator from his committee brings 
in a bill 

Representative Lever (interposing). Well, did he bring in his 
bill? Did he bring in this bill you speak of five years ago? 

Mr. Ward. He did. It w^as introduced into the Senate by Senator 
Owen, of Oklahoma, in 1911. 

Representative Lever. Yes; and there are 30,000 bills introduced 
every year in Congress. Was it reported from any connnittee? 

Mr. Ward. That I can't tell you. 

Representative Lever. But you said it was reported, just a moment 
ago. 

Mr. Ward. Well, if I did, I misspoke myself. I am not exactly 
precise on your terms here, because I am not familiar with them. I 
don't knoAv when it is reported or when it is out. It was in the public 
press as having been introduced by Senator Owen. 

Representative Lever. There are lots of things introduced here, 
Mr. Ward, that never see the light of day. 

Mr. Ward. That isn't important to us and to these men that I rep- 
resent. I say this, that when the Senator has introduced that bill, 
and it in its terms condemned those materials as fraudulent and as 
an adulteration, after five years it is scarcely open to discussion that 
this is a new thing. 

Representative Lever. Now, let's see about this situation, and then 
I will have to go, because I have another engagement on another 
matter. 

The Senate passed this proposition known as the Gore amendment, 
without debate, practically, without roll call, without discussion, 
unanimously, without a dissenting voice, yet yesterday morning three 
of these same Senators who presumably voted for it came here pro- 
testing vigorously against it. 

The Chairman. I want to say in that connection myself 

Representative Lever (interposing). That is the record. 

The Chairman. I know it is the record, and there are in the record 
misleading and false telegrams sent out by the Quaker Oats Co., 
wdiich were not the truth. 

Representative Lever. I don't Imow about that, but that shows 
what I am trying to get at, that you can't tell from the introduction 
of these things. 

The Chairman. The point I am trying to make is that this tele- 
gram was sent out to mills all over the country, calculated to inspire 
fear and alarm on their part — 'Well founded fear if the telegram had 
been true — and Senators acting upon those representations, of course, 
made protests against such legislation. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. • 133 

Representative PIauoen. jNIr. Chairman, let me see if I can get one 
matter cleared np liere. 

I understood you to say that some certain oroanizalion — you didn't 
name the organizatiorj — that some organization maintained funds 
and paid the fines of the dealers who were violating the law? 

Mr. Ward. The manufacturer — this association. 

Representative Hauoen. What association? 

Mr. Ward. The Feed Dealers' Association. 

Representative Halkjex. The association that is appearing here in 
opposition to this bill? 

Mr. Ward. This is what I am informed by an agent of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, who has been many years in our department, 
that when John Doe, the feed dealer, is found with a sample of 
fraudulent food and it goes to the department and is found bad, the 
Department of Agriculture communicates in no way whatsoever with 
John Doe, (the feed dealer. Instead of that he sends the letter as- 
sessing the penalty to the American Feed Dealers' Association, who 
transmit it to the manufacturer, who pays the penalty, and John Doe, 
the feed dealer, is never even informed that the feed he was selling 
to the farmers was bad. 

Representative Haugen. Then the fine for violating the law is paid 
by the association? 

Mr. Ward. Oh, yes; it is paid by the manufacturer. I don't know 
who pays it. 

Representative Haugen. I can't imagine that we could have such 
an association in this country. 

Mr. Ward. I don't know who pays it, but the check comes to the 
Agricultural Department. 

Representative Haugen. If we have an association in this country 
that maintains a fund to pay the fines of anybody violating the law, 
that is quite a serious matter. 

Mr. Ward. I don't know where it comes from. The check comes 
to the Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at this point? 

Mr. Ward. We have a witness here who can testify as to that. 

Mr. Abbott. We wish to refute this statement and brand it un- 
qualifiedly a lie. I am president of the American Feed Manufac- 
turers' Association. 

The Chairman. You had better use parliamentary language, I 
think. 

Mr. Abbott. I will withdraw that from the record, if you wish, 
and say as unqualifiedly false. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Ward. In answer to your question, don't misunderstand me. 
We don't know who pays it. The check comes to the Agricultural 
Department, and the feed dealer — the point I want to make — we 
don't care about that — that the feed dealer isn't even informed of the 
facts. 

Representative Haugen. I don't care what you feel about it. what 
I want to get at is the facts. If the facts are — you still assert that 
these fines are not paid by the man who violates the law ? 

Mr. Ward. Absolutely ; that they are paid by some association. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, your disclaimer relates to the Feed 
Manufacturers' Association ? 



134 • ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

]\Ir. Abbott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And yon don't nndertake to say that this practice 
is not carried on by some other organization? 

Mr. Abbott. We have no knowledge whatsoever of other organi- 
zations' affairs. . 

The Chairman. Well, that is what I wanted to make clear. 

Representative Haugen. Did yon refer to this organization ? 

Mr. Ward. My information is from the department that the letter 
is transmitted, or was up until very recenth', to the American Feed 
Dealers' Association. 

Representative Haugen. What is your association? 

Mr. Abbott. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association is 
the trade name of our association. 

Representative Haugen. Is he referring to your association? 

Mr. Abbott. I should judge from the character of his remarks he 
undoubtedly was. 

Representative Haugen. Are the names the same? 

The Chairman. There seems to be a feed dealers' association and 
a feed manufacturers' association. 

Mr. Abbott. His definition of names does not seem to be the same. 
He, however, addressed his remarks to this association, irrespective 
of names. 

Representative Haugen. I want to make that clear. 

Mr. Raymond Smith. Senator Gore, inasmuch as I supplied the 
information to Judge Ward for the statement that he is now making 
1 will give the basis for his making that statement and where I 
obtained it. 

The Chairman. That would be better. Is that satisfactory to you, 
judge? 

Mr. Ward. Yes, sir. 

Representative Haugen. Referring to this organization? 

Mr. Smith. Referring to this organization here, the American 
Feed Manufacturers' Association of the United States, of which 
L. F. Brown is secretary, located at Milwaukee, Wis. 

While in the department of agriculture at Albany in 1915, after 
the resignation of Calvin J. Houston as commissioner of agriculture, 
I made an investigation of that department to ascertain conditions 
in that department. I had not proceeded with niy investigation very 
far when I developed that the enforcement of law as affecting the 
prosecution of samples of commercial feeding stuffs that had been 
reported from the experiment station as below standard had not 
been prosecuted. Under those instructions I went into that building 
one night at 1 o'clock with another agent — under the instructions 
from the governor's office of that State— and I discovered corre- 
spondence which showed a list of samples that had been reported 
from the Geneva Experiment Station as far back as 1906 that had 
failed of prosecution, although they had been reported from the 
Geneva Experiment Station as being below standard. 

The Chairman. You say they had not been prosecuted? 

Mr. Smith. They had not been prosecuted. I found there a letter 
from the bureau of dairy products, written by Mr. Burke, who is 
here to-day, directed to the legal bureau, calling for these statements 
from Mr. Jordan that his building was filled with samples which he 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 135 

fiad received no report on from the legal bureau of the department of 
agriculture, and asking him whether he could destroy those or not; 
that they were getting short of cans. That correspondence I have. 

I also discovered there a payment of money in a check from Swift 
& Co., which is a member of this association, and of which Mr. Fer- 
guson was third vice president, and the letterhead which I found 
there with his name on it, and I checked up that list with the mem- 
bership of this association and I found that a very small percentage 
(of the samples of feed which had been reported below standard had 
been paid by this association, but that a large part of the violations 
that had come from the Geneva Experiment Station had been 
marked " No case," or " Discontinued." Now, that correspondence I 
still have, together with the official receipt and the letters from 
Swift & Co. to the deputy commissioner inclosing a check to him. 

Now, of course I am not going to take .up the time to go into the 
other food and entangling alliances between the packers and this asso- 
ciation and the close alignments there, and especially with the attor- 
neys of this association and the chamber of commerce, Mr. Butler, 
but I found a letter there that is not in my possession now, because it 
is in the hands of another party, in which Mr. Brown requested that 
all penalties for feed below the standard of the association be taken 
up with the manufacturer, and that was done. And I afterwards 
found in looking over one case, especially in the county in which I 
lived — a man whom you gentlemen present know — I asked Mr. 
Lefevre, for whom I knew there was a case pending, a feed dealer 
in the towm of New Paltz, for feed which he had bought of the Met- 
ropolitan Mills, also located in our State — the majority of our mills 
in this association are located outside ; they have another association 
which operates within the State — I asked him about the case. I 
found that a year after the case had been reported and the violation 
had been reported they had been allowed to come in and take out a 
license of $25 and avoid a penalty of $50. I checked that up and I 
found that that practice of non pro tuncing was very prevalent. 

Now, the enforcement there is on the increase. With a few more 
men like Mr. White there New York will be a different State and a 
different department from what it has been. 

There was no dispute on this point. I can not go into the question 
in detail ; I am only stating what I discovered while in the employ of 
that department, for the simple reason that for a short space of time 
I. was connected with the Federal Trade Commission, and as an 
examiner there under section 6 I am absolutely prohibited from dis- 
closing anything that was discovered or the nature of any of the 
evidence developed while in the employ of that commission. I am 
stating now evidence that came in my possession and evidence which 
T had before I was associated w^ith the Federal Trade Commission. 

Mr. McLaughtjn. When you made that investigation and found 
that check, by w^hom were you employed? 

Mr. Smith. The New York State Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. McLaughlin. You spoke of the Department of Agriculture. 
I thought you meant this Federal Department. 

Mr. Smith. No ; not at all. 

Mr. McLaughlin. How many such checks did you find? 

Mr. Smith. I found a very bad condition there. I found that 
licenses had been sent in 



136 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

^Ir. McLaughlin (interposing). How many fines or how many 
penalties did you find had been paid b}^ the association instead of 
by the offending dealer? 

Mr. Smith. That is a very hard question to answer directly. 
There was no dispute in the defpartment — there was no dispute b\^ tne 
legal adviser. Mr. Inlanders, that he took up the cases of the manu- 
facturers direct, with them, and I foimd that they found their way 
into Mr. Brown's oftice, and that there they were in fact adjusted by 
him with the department. 

Mr. McLaughlin. I was trying to have you say with some defi- 
niteness how many of these penalties Avere settled by checks from 
headquarters. 

Mr. Smith. AVhy that would necessitate my becoming liable to 
prosecution under section G of the Federal trade act, because I did 
not ascertain that fact while in the department. 

Mr. McLaughlin. AVhile 3^ou were in the <lepartment and gitined 
knowledge that you are free to ^peak about without subjecting your- 
self to a penalty, how many payments of that kind did you find had 
been made? 

]Mr. Smith. You mean of the checks of the deputy couunissioner? 

Mr. McLaughlin. The checks in pa3^ment of fines, or taking care 
of the fines or penalties, coming from souie source other than the 
offending dealer who sold the goods. 

Mr. Smith. Why, I will tell you, when it w^as admitted — I will 
answer your question briefly. When it was admitted by Mr. 
Flanders that he took up these cases with the manufacturer, there 
was really no reason — it wasn't necessary to go any further into the 
question as to just Avho paid those penalties. But I will say this, that 
in a number of cases tluit I found, especially the Ealston peo])le, that 
previous to their membership in this association they wei-e given the 
limit of the law, the maximum, but after they became members of 
this association they received friendly offices. 

Mr. McLaughlin. What do you mean by "given the limit? " 

Mr. S:mith. I mean they paid the maximum penalty under the 
laW'. 

Mr. AiiBOTT. Mr. C'liairman, nuiy I ask a question? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Abbott. Your statement a minute ago was to the effect that 
the American Feed Manufacturers' Association had tendered a 
check. 

Mr. Smith. I did not say that. I said Swift & Co., a member of 
this association. 

]Mr. Abbott. Your statement a few minutes ago, unqualifiedly 
made, stated that the xVmerican Feed Manufacturers' Association 
paid the fine of some one who was prosecuted. 

Mr. Ward. I think you had better refer to the minutes. The wit- 
ness made no such statement. 

I said Swift & Co., a member of this association, sent the check. 

Mr. Abbott. You made the statement and Mr, Smith confirmed 
the statement, if I may interject. 

Mr. Ward. No ; I did not make any such statement. 

Mr. Abbott. You made the statement that the American Feed 
Msinufncturers' Association- 

Mr. Ward (interposing). No, sir. 

The Chairman. He said the American Feed Dealers' x\ssociation. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 137 

Mr. Abboti'. Will you please have the record read, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Smith. I know that in the case of the local people there 

Mr. Abbott (interj^osing). Will yon have the record read, Mr. 
Chairman? 

The CHAIRMA^^ Find that statement of Mr. Ward's and read it. 
(The reporter read the record beginning:) 

Ilepi-esentative Haugkn. Mr. Cliainiian, just let me see if I can iiet one matter 
cleared up here. I understood you to say that some certain orpuiization — you 
didn't name the organization — that some organization maintained funds and 
paid the tines of the dealers who were violating the law, and ending with the 
statement of Mr. Smith. 

Now. that correspondence I still have, together wilh the olHcial receipt and 
the letters from Swift ».**: Co. to the deputy connnissionei- inclosing a check 
to him. 

Mr. Abbott. There is just one question, Mr. Chairman, may I asJf 
Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Waiu). Now, you found that Mr. Smith was correct in his 
statement and that you were misquoting his evidence, and I think yon 
ought to say something. 

Mr. Abbott. I will beg your pardon. Judge Ward. 

The Chairman. I don't think that is material. 

Mr. Abbott. I merely confirmed — may I ask Mr. Smith one ques- 
tion ? 

Mr. Smith. Yon can. 

Mr. Abbott. Have you found one instance in which the American 
Feed Manufacturer's"' Association has paid anyone's fine? 

Mr. Smith. I have. 
' Mr. Abbott. Please state it. 

Mr. Smith. In talking with ex- Assembly man Abraham Lefevre, 
of New Paltz, Ulster County, N. Y., formerly a member of the ways 
and means committee of the legislature of the State of New York, 
he told me that he had had three cases against hiuiself personally. He 
said, ''Of course, I don't pay any money on them, but they are down 
there and that makes me an offender under the law." And he said, 
"" I don't like it and intend if I get back to the legislature another 
year to remedy that condition.*' 

Now, that statement can be verified by Mr. Lefevre. I am giving 
yon his address and the facts in relation to it. T can't see where there 
should be any great hullabaloo about whether you do pay them or 
not. because it has been a known practice that the oleo trade has done 
the same thing. It is a practice among these people, but the question 
is 

Mr. Abbott (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I must ask the privi- 
lege to ask Mr. Smith a question again. He didn't answer my ques- 
tion and I want to ask it again. 

Have you, Mr, Smith, any direct evidence in the way of having 
seen checks or correspondence yourself that would prove the fact 
that the American Feed Mannfactnrers' Association as an organiza- 
tion had paid Mr. Lefevre's fine? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I would prefer that Mr. Lefevre himself sub- 
stantiate that, which he has offered to do in an affidavit. 

Mr. Abbott. You have not seen this evidence? 

Mr. Smith. I am stating here to-day my experience while in that 
department. 

Mr. Abbot'J'. Will yon please answer my qnestion? 



138 ADULTEEATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 

Mr. Smith. I prefer to rest on the answer that I made to your 
question, the first one yon made, which I think answered it by wiving 
you the name and address of the man, who is known to several of you 
men sitting out there. 

Mr, Abbott. Mr. Lefevre is a dealer or manufacturer? 

Mr. Smith. He is a dealer in feed, located at New Paltz, Ulster 
County, N. Y. " 

Mr. Abbott. Is he a member of the American Feed Manufacturers' 
Association ? 

Mr. Smith. I don't think he is. I think he is a member of this new 
association that you formed about — well, you held a meeting in 
Albany in May of this year, and he attended that meeting, of the 
Eastern federation. 

JNIr. Abbott. Is there any reason, Mr. Chairman, why Mr, Smith 
should not answer my question with the answer of either yes or no? 

]\Ir. Ward. It is not material to the inquiry. We don't care who 
pays it. 

The Chaikmax. I think this is an important point, Mr. Abbott, 
and I think it is important that Mr. Smith ought not to make an 
imputation against the American Feed Manufacturers' Association 
unless he is certain of his facts, and he ought to be certain that it is' 
the association that is guilty of the conduct which he is now alleging. 
There ought not to be any — if it is some other organization, that 
ought to l)e made plain, because there ought not to be anv reflection 
undeservedly cast on this or any other organization, for that matter. 

I would like to sav this, that according to my understanding the 
American Feed Dealers' Association, operating in New York, is a 
concern of blacklisted millers that sold feed stuffs direct to. the farm- 
ers. It w^as under Federal prosecution and was dissolved, the same 
parties reorganizing under the name of the Eastern Feed Dealers' 
Association. It may be that that is confused with this. I don't 
know myself, I am onh?^ concerned that no injustice should be done 
the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. I have no dispo- 
sition to shield them against just charges. 

Mr. Ward. We don't want any confusion on the subject, and I 
would like to ask Mr, Abbott if there is any question but what it is 
common trade custom for the manufacturer who sold the feed, to pay 
these penalties? Now, my understanding is — I may be wrong, but 
my understanding of the matter is that the manufacturer does stand 
back of his goods and pays the penalty. Isn't that a fact ? 

Mr. Abbott. You are speaking, then, of the manufacturer of the 
particular product in question? 

Mr. Ward. I am asking for information from you who know. 
Isn't it a common practice for the manufacturer who makes these 
feeds to pay any penalty assessed against the dealer? 

Mr. Abbott. 1 will answer that. Judge Ward, by saying that it 
might easily happen that the manufacturer as an individual might 
pay the fine of the dealer as far as his goods were concerned. 

Don't you think it is better. Judge Ward, that the implication be 
not passed upon the American Feed Manufacturers' Association? 

Mr. Ward. I have been very careful not to do that. I told the 
Congressman that I made no statement as to who paid it. Mr. 
Brown's letter asked that penalties be taken up with the association. 
Mr. Brown's letter is where it can be found. Mr, Brown is your 
secretary. 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 139 

Mr. Ward. Mr. Brown's letter; you have it. 

Mr. Smith. I will tell you, I expect to file here with you, Senator, 
copies of cases, with their number, the name, the correspondence, 
letters from Swift & Co. to the deputy commissioner, and other facts 
pertaining to commercial feed in relation to the department of agri- 
culture in New York. I will file those with the committee so that 
they will be open to the gentlemen on the other side. 

Mr. Waed. Now, I will continue and close. Senator, if you will 
permit. 

The CiTAiRiMAN. Let me say at this point, lest I forget it, Mr. Gray, 
I want to request that you file with your statement a list of all indi- 
viduals, firms, and corporations to whom or for which the Quaker 
Oats Co. sent the telegram read into the record by Mr. Lasater, or 
any similar telegrams; and if there was any telegram substantiall}^ 
different, see that I have copies of those. 

Mr. Graf. We will be glad to comply with your request. 

Mr. Ward. Now, the dairymen have no interest in who pays this 
penalty. The lawmakers may, and we don't want that section to 
interfere with the proposition that I wish to make in closing. 

We are perfectly willing that the bill shall permit, as it does, for 
these gentlemen to ship bulk wheat hulls, corncobs, oat hulls, every- 
thing they can get — ground coconut shells — into the State of New 
York or all over the United States. All we ask is that they brand it 
for just what it is. 

Mr. McLaughlin. Some of these gentlemen have said that it is 
impossible for the manufacturers to put the formula on the con- 
tainer, the formula stating the percentage of the contents. What do 
you say about that? 

Mr. Ward. Well, I say this. Congressman, that several States have 
that requirement, and in those States that law is to a greater or less 
extent complied with by all the manufacturers of sound dairy foods. 
The manufacturer of unsound dairy foods probably will not comply 
with that law, and therefore will not ship his unsound goods into 
that State, because the people won't buy them, and he would lose the 
freight. The man who makes a wholesome food that can stand being 
named by its proper title — and there are a great many of them; 
there are a great many of them members of this association — who 
make a sound, wholesome food, that they can name its contents at 
any spot or place, and that is the kind of food we want favored in 
interstate shipment, and we don't want sold in competition with that, 
side by side with it and for practically the same price — it will be 
shaded a dollar or two a ton — something that hasn't a food value 
approximating 25 per cent of the other article — and the farmer can't 
tell the difference — the average farmer — and he can't know it through 
the action of any State agricultural institution in our State under a 
year or two. 

The Chairman. I have a call that requires me to leave in a very 
few minutes, Mr. Ward. 

Mr. Ward. I will close wath one more sentence. As far as the food 
and drug act is concerned, it is absolutelv valueless in this question 
of compounded feeds. The decision of the United States court in 
the Corno-Oat Feed Case, Federal Eeporter, volume 188, page 453, 
took away from the compounded feeds any practical value that the 



140 ■ ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

food and drugs act might have, and as Flour and Feed said, " Here- 
after a good name and tlie right legal name for any food is the name 
the manufacturer puts on it if it is a dairy food.'' 

I am very much obliged to you gentlemen. There ought not to be 
any contest between the farmers and you gentlemen on this subject. 

The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you for your patience 
and for your uniform courtesy. We will now adjourn. 

(The jfollowing testimony of Mr. Butler was taken during the hear- 
ings before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, rela- 
tive to the protest of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States 
against the report of the Federal Trade Commission concerning the 
meat packers of the country, but was directed by the chairman of said 
committee to be inserted in these hearings) : 

STATEMENT OF MR. KUSH C. BUTLEE, CHAIRMAN FEDERAL 
TRADE COMMITTEE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND ATTORNEY FOR AMERICAN FEED MANUFACTUR- 
ERS' ASSOCIATION. 

The Chairman. I would like the stenogra})her to have these ques- 
tions which I am about to ask printed in connection with the other 
questions on the same subject; they are a little aside from t]ie present 
issue : 

The American Feed Manufacturers' Association — you are their at- 
torney and brought several suits for them in connection with the Vir- 
ginia statutes, did j^ou not? 

Mr. Butler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And those suits resulted in the statute being an- 
nulled in the Suj^reme Court of the Ignited States, did they not ? 

Mr. Butler. The Virginia statute was annulled by the circuit court 
of appeals, and the State was unable to get into the Supreme Coui't of 
the United States. 

The Mississippi statute fell down before we got to the circuit court 
of appeals. 

The Chairman. That is what I wanted to know — is it the practice 
of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association to challenge these 
State laws and have them tested out in the courts? 

Mr. Butler. We have done that in those tAvo instances only; and 
both of those suits were instituted, I think, in 1911 or 1912. 

The Chairman. And you have one pending now, you say? 

Mr. Butler. W^ell, we have been consulted about one. 

The Chairman. What State did it relate to? 

Mr. Butler. Texas. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

(The following telegrams were subsequently directed by the chair- 
man to be inserted in the record:) 

St. Louis, Mo., ^cptctnhcr 11, 1918. 
Hon. Thomas P. Gore, 

United States Setiate, Washington, D. C: 

Your telesvam received. The directors of tlie Merchants' Exchange feel you 
are correct in your position when it applies to corncol)s, ground cocoa shells, 
ivory-nut tui'ninfi;s, ground cornstallvs, sawdust, and dirt whicli have no feed 
value, but your amendment is too liroad, especially when it applies to ground 
hay. screenings, chaff, or offal from- any seed or grain ; likewise cotton seed or 
oat huU.s, oat clijipings, etc., all of which have good feed values. Your amend- 
ment would also exclude ground alfalfa hay, which is known to be one of the 
best possible feeds. The -passage of your amendment would mean disaster to 



ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 141 

legitimate industries, sucli as lioui- mills, feed mills throujilioiit the United 
States, and untold damage to hofi', cattle, and dairy intes-ests, i)articularly at 
this time of shortage of feeds thnnmliout the country. 

John (). Ballard, 

Presideitt. 



New York, N. Y., Scptcinber 16, 191<^. 
Ed. C. Lasater, 

918 Erans BuUduKj. WiDilthiyton, I). C. 
National Milk Producers" Association and Dairymen's League — 57,000 mem- 
hers — favor the feeding stuffs amendment to the general agricultural bill. 
Almost impossible to have our repi-esentative at hearing to-morrow. Will you 
rejn-esent these two organizations in support of Gore amendment? 

II. D. Cooper. 

New York, N. \'.. Scptcriiber 20, 1918. 
Hon. T. P. Gore, 

United Stdtcfi SciKite, \V(tHhin<iton, D. C. 
At a meeting of conference New York farm organizations representing New 
Yoi'k State grange, the Dairymen's League, New York .State Federation Farm 
Bureaus, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: ''Resolved, That 
the conference of New Yoi'k farm organizations indorse the principle of the 
feed-control legislation proposed in H. R. 11945." 

R. D. Cooper. Chairman. 

(The following affidavits were subsequently directed by the chair- 
man to be inserted in the record : ) 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county 
of New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan, 
in said city, on Monday, the 1st day of December, in the year of our Lord 1913 : 

Present: Hons. Joseph F. Moss, John Fleming, George J. O'Keefe, justices 
of the court of special, sessions of the city of New York. 

The I'eople of the State of New York r. Swift & Co., coriinration, on a charge 
of violation of section 41'. sanitary code. 

Dated September 28. 1918. 

I do certify that it api)ears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and 
tinetl $250 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 1st 
da.v of December, 1913; 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[SEAL.] Joiix P. Hilly. Clerk of Court. 

At a court of speciid sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan, in 
said city, on Friday, the 12th day of r>ecember, in the year of our Lord 1913: 

Present: Hons. Joseph F. -Moss, (ieorge J. G'Keefe, John Flendng, justices 
of the court of si)ecial sessions of the city of New York. 

The People of the State, of New York r. -a corporation called Swift & Co.. on 
a charge of violation of section 339/*, public-health law., cold storage. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do cei'tify that it .-ipjiears from an examination of the records of this oflice 
that a cori)oration (ailed .Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was con- 
victed and lined .*t;.50() by the court of special sessions of the city of New York 
on the 12th daj^ of December, 1913. 

A true extract froni the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
of New Y^ork. at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan 
in said city, on Monday, the 15th day of December in the year of our Lord 1913 : 

Present : Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O'Keefe, John Fleming, justices 
of the court of sjiecial sessions of the city of New Y'^ork. 

The People of the State of New York r. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge 
of violation of section 42, sanitary code. . 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift & Co., coi-poration, the above-named defen<lant. was convicted and 



142 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 

fined $300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 
15th (lay of December, 1913. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[SEAL.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
of New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan 
in said city, on IMonday, the 15th day of December in the year of our liord 1913 : 

Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, Georjie J. O'Keefe, John Fleming, justices 
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a cliarge 
of violation of section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and 
fined $300 by the court of special sessions of the citv of New York on the 
15th day of December, 1913. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in 
said city, on Monday, the 15th day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1913: 

Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O'Keefe, John Fleming, justices 
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a 
charge of violation of section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Sw ft & Co., corporation, the al)Ove-uamed defendant was convicttMl and 
fined .$300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 15th 
day of Decendjer, 1913. 

A true extract froiu the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held In the county of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in 
said city, on Monday, the 29th day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1913: 

Present: Hons. James J. Mclnei'ney, Cornelius F. Collins, Lorenz Zeller, jus- 
tices of the court of special sessions of the c ty of New York. 

The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co. (Inc.), on a charge of 
violation of section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift & Co. (Inc.), the above-named defendant was convicted and fined 
$100 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 29th day 
of December, 1913. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, iield in 'the county of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in 
said city, on Monday, the 19th day of January, in the year of ftur Lord, 1914: 

Present: Hons. Moses Herrman, .James J. Mclnerney, Lorenz Zeller. justices 
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The people of the State of New Yor]<: v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge 
of violation of section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift «& Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and 
fined $500 by the court of special sessions of the city of Nev.- York, on the 19th 
day of January, 1914. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the coimty of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in 
said city, on Monday, the 17th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1914: 



ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS, 143 

Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O'Keefe, Jiimes J. Mclnerney, 
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge 
of violation of section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and 
fined $500 by tl e court of special sessions of the city of Ne\\- York, on the 17th 
day of August, 1914. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, C7e?-/c of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the City of New Y^ork, held in tlie county of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Bol'ough of Manhattan in 
said city, on Monday, the 2d day of November, in the year of our Lord 1914: 

Present : Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Joseph F. IMoss, Cornelius F. Collins, 
justices of the court of .special sessions of the city of New Y''ork. 

The People of the State of New York v. Armour & Co., corporation, on a 
charge of violation section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 28, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Armour & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted 
and fined .^300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 
2d day of November, 1914. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] ■ John p. Hilly, G?e/7i 0/ C'o!/rf. 

At a court of special sessions of the City of New Y'ork, held in the county of 
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
said city, on IMonday, the 11th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1915: 

Present : Hons. Jsnac Franklin Russell, .Joseph F. IMoss, Moses Herrman, 
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The Peop'e of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., on a charge of violation 
of section 336 of the public-health law, cold storage. 

Dated September 28, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Svift & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined $590 by 
the c(mrt of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th dav of Janu- 
uary. 1915. ^ 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
New York, at the building foi- criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
said c-ty, on Monday, the 25tb (\ay of .January, in the year of our Lord, 1915: 

Pre.sent : Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Cornelius F. Coliins, .Joseph F. Moss, 
justices of the court of special sessions of th.e city of New York. 

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., on a charge of violation 
of public-health law, cold storage. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I ('o certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
that Swift f: Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted, and judgment sus- 
peiK^.ed, by the c<niit of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 25th 
day of January. 1915. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, CJerk of Court. 

At a C( urt of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
No'- York, at the bui'ding for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
sa'd c t;-. on ISIonday, the 25th day of January, in the yeaf of our Lord, 1915 : 

Present: Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Cornelius F. Collins, Joseph F. Mo.ss, 
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., on a charge of violation 
of public-health law, -cold storage. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
tbat Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined $.500 by- 



144 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 



^^ 



the court of spor-ial sessions of the citv of New York, on tlie 2oth (hiv of Jaminrv 
1915. ' ■ 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[SEAL.] .ToHN p. Hilly. Clrrk of (Joui't. 

At a court of si»ecial sessions of the city <tf New York, held in tlie county of 
New York, at the huil(lin,i>- for crinnmil courts in the Boroufih of Manhattan in 
said city, on the 15th (hiy of JMarch, in tlie year of our Lord 1915: 

Present: Hous. Frederic Kernochau. .lames ,1. ilclnerney, .John .1. Freschi, 
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The I'eople of tlie State of New I'ork /". Ai-mour & Co., on a charge of violation 
of iiuhlic-health law. cold storage. 

Dated September 23, 1918. 

I do ceitify that it ai)pears from an examination of the records of this ottice 
tliat Armour & Co., the above-named defendant, plead guilty and was tined .$.500 
h.v the court of special sessions of the cit.v of New York on the 15th day of 
March, 1915. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
New Y'ork, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
said city, on Monday, the 11th day of September, in the year of our Ijord 1916: 

Present: Hons. P^dwin L. Garvin, Frederic Kernoclian. Cornelius V. Collins, 
.iustices of tlie court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

The People of the State of New York r. Swift iV: Co. (Inc.), on a charge of 
violation section 163. sanitary code. 

Dated Septenibei- 23, 1918. 

I do certify that it ajipears from an examination of the records of tliis office 
that Swift & Co. (Inc.), the aliove-named defendant, was convicted and tiued 
.$100 by tlie court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th day of 
September, 1916. 

A ti'ue extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] .Iohn p. Hilly, Clrrk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of tlie city of New York, held in the county 
of New Y'ork, at the building for criminal courts in the P>orougli of ;\Ianhattan 
in said city, on Monday, the 11th day of September, in the year of our Ijord 
1916: 

Present: Hons. Edwin L. Garvin, Frederic Iveriiochan. Cornelius F. Collins, 
.justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 

Tlie I'eople of the State of New York r. Swift & Co. (Inc.), on a charge of 
violation of section 163, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23. 1918. 

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of tliis office 
that Swift & Co. (Inc.). the above-named defendant, pleaded guilty, and was 
tined $100 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th 
day of September, 1916. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

[seal.] .Iohn 1'. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

At a court of special sessions of the city of New Y'ork. held in the county 
of New Y^ork, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan 
in said city, on Friday, tlie 22d of .January, in the year of our Lord 1915: 

Present : Hons. Arthur C. Salmon, .James .T. Mclnerney, Moses Hernnan, 
.justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New Y'oiiv. 

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corp(n-ation, on a charge 
of violation .section 42, sanitary code. 

Dated September 23. 1918. 

I do certify tliat it appears from an examination of the records of tliis office 
that Swift & Co., corporation, the. above-named defendant, was convicted and 
fined $5(X) by the court of special sessions of the cit.v of New York on the 22fl (\;\y 
of .January, 1918. 

A true extract from the minutes. 

I seal.] .John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 

(Thereupon, at 5 o'clock, the Conference Committee adjourned.') 



<C X 



% 



<'o 



